<0^f^mcs}-^ 


vS 


BV  813  .M39 
Mayes,  R.  B. 
The  Tecnobaptist 


/^~ 


MJN    3   1919 


A    DISCOURSE, 


WHEREIN    AN 


HONEST   BAPTIST, 

BY  A  COUESE  OF  AEGUMENT  TO  WIUCH  KO  HOKEST  BAPTIST  CAJi  OBJECT. 


IS  CONVINCED  THAT 


INFANT  CHRISTIANS  ARE  PROPER  SUBJECTS  OF 
CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM. 


E.     B.     M  A  Y  E  S. 


"  Lord,  that  I  might  receive  my  sight."  —  Mark  x.  51. 
"  Father,  not  as  I  will,  but  as  thou  wilt."  —  Matt.  xxvi. 


BOSTON: 

PRINTED   BY  JOHN  WILSON  &   SON, 

22,  School  Street. 

1857. 


Entered,  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1857,  by 

K.      B.      MATE  S, 

In  the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  District  Court  for  the  Southern  District  of  Mississippi. 


THE      HON.     Z.     WHEAT, 

®f  Columbia,  funtutlm. 


My  dea-r  Sir,  —  Without  having  aslied  your  pennission,  or  inti- 
mated my  intention,  I  take  the  liberty  of  inscribing  this  little  volume 
to  you ;  prompted  by  feelings,  which,  to  the  public,  would  possess  no 
interest ;  to  you,  will  need  no  explanation ;  to  me,  language  is  wanting 
to  express. 

Happy  in  the  assurance  that  no  proof  is  necessary,  it  is  yet  with 
pleasure  that  I  thus  testify  the  unmeasured  regard  with  which  I  am 

Affectionately  yours, 

THE   AUTHOR. 


PREFACE 


Certain  authors,  by  bad  advocacy  (though,  doubtless, 
the  best  of  which  the  cause  is  susceptible),  converted  the 
writer  of  these  pages  from  the  opinion,  in  regard  to  infant- 
baptism,  which  he  had  imbibed  from  early  associations. 
Afterward  a  friend  forcibly  presented  one  of  their  argu- 
ments at  a  time  when  the  writer  had  forgotten  the  grounds 
on  which  he  had  previously  rejected  it.  Not  having  suffi- 
cient learning  to  decide  upon  the  accuracy  of  the  premises 
assumed,  he  could  not  conscientiously  deny  them,  and  had 
nearly  yielded,  or  at  least  confessed  his  inabihty  to  make 
immediate  reply,  when  the  view  which  is  developed  in  the 
following  pages  flashed  upon  his  mind.  As  he  has  never 
read  any  work  in  defence  of  the  opinion  which  he  now 
holds,  he  does  not  know  but  that  the  argument  here  pre- 
sented is  old  ;  but  another  friend,  to  whom  it  was  submit- 
ted (and  whose  name,  did  the  writer  feel  at  liberty  to 
mention  it,^  might  recommend  this  essay  to  the  respect  of 

1  The  writer  no  longer  feels  any  delicacy  in  stating  that  the  gentle- 
man here  alluded  to  was  the  Hon.  Caswell  R.  Clifton,  late  of  Jackson, 
Miss. ;  whose  modesty  cannot  now  be  o£Fended  by  the  praises  which  his 


vi  PREFACE. 

many  who  may  otherwise  regard  it  unworthy  of  their 
notice),  thought  the  argument  new  and  striking,  if  not 
conchisive,  and  requested  that  it  should  be  reduced  to 
writing.  In  the  following  pages,  the  effort  is  made  to  com- 
ply with  that  request. 

To  the  writer,  who  has  pondered  this  argument  a  length 
of  time,  it  seems  plain  and  obvious  ;  but  some  have  deemed 
it  too  abstruse  to  be  readily  grasped  by  persons  unaccus- 
tomed to  logical  investigation.  To  adapt  the  reasoning  to 
this  class  of  persons,  the  synthetic  method  is  pursued,  and 
the  colloquial  form  is  adopted,  as  more  favorable  to  a 
clear  statement  of  the  several  conflicting  opinions  which 
require  examination,  and  fo  a  gradual  unfolding  and  tho- 
rough simplification  of  the  leading  argument  intended  to 
be  evolved.  Some,  who  agree  as  to  infant-baptism,  are 
divided  on  the  subject  of  baptismal  regeneration,  which 
is  incidentally  considered.  It  was  therefore  more  con- 
venient to  introduce  three  colloquists;  and  it  has  been 
attempted  to  make  them,  in  character  and  temper,  equally 
representatives  of  the  true  and  liberal  Christian  gentleman, 
of  whatever  denomination.  In  doctrinal  opinion,  two  of 
them  represent  two  classes  of  theologians  ;  while  the  third 
is  merely  the  vehicle  of  the  opinions  of  the  writer,  who  is 


memory  so  well  deserves.  The  manuscript  of  this  discourse  has  been 
lying  in  the  writer's  drawer  for  considerably  more  than  a  year,  during 
which  time  Judge  Clifton  was  cut  off  in  the  midst  of  his  usefulness. 
He  will  long  be  remembered  for  the  purity  and  elevation  of  his  charac- 
ter, in  which  zeal  for  his  political  and  religious  opinions  was  reconciled 
with  charity  for  their  opponents,  moderation,  integrity,  and  rectitude  of 
judgment. 


PREFACE.  Vll 

not  connected  with  any  denomination.  He  has  adopted 
what  he  conceives  to  be  the  best  method  of  making  the 
former  two  express  accurately  the  doctrines  which  they 
respectively  represent.  If,  however,  he  have  failed,  the 
misrepresentation  was  not  designed ;  and  he  will  be  grate- 
ful to  any  one  who  will  kindly  point  it  out. 

As  nothing  is  more  important,  in  considering  the  doc- 
trines of  religion,  than  to  approach  them  with  a  candid 
mind,  these  observations  cannot  be  better  closed  than  by 
recommending  a  careful  perusal  of  the  following  extract 
from  Locke's  Essay  on  the  "  Conduct  of  the  Understand- 
ing" (§§  10-12)  :— 

"  He  whose  assent' goes  beyond  his  evidence  owes  this  excess  of 
his  adherence  only  to  prejudice,  and  does  in  effect  own  it  when  he 
refuses  to  hear  what  is  offered  against  it ;  declaring  thereby  that 
it  is  not  evidence  he  seeks,  but  the  quiet  enjoyment  of  the  opinion 
he  is  fond  of,  with  a  forward  condemnation  of  all  that  may  stand 
in  opposition  to  it  unheard  and  unexamined ;  which,  what  is  it 
but  prejudice  ?  He  that  would  acquit  himself  in  this  case  as  a 
lover  of  truth,  not  giving  way  to  any  pre-occupation  or  bias  that 
may  mislead  him,  must  do  two  things  that  are  not  very  common 
nor  very  easy.  First,  he  must  not  be  in  love  with  any  opinion,  or 
wish  it  to  be  true,  till  he  knows  it  to  be  so.  Nothing  that  is  false 
deserves  our  good  wishes,  nor  a  desire  that  it  should  have  the  place 
and  force  of  truth ;  and  yet  nothing  is  more  frequent  than  this. 
Men  are  fond  of  certain  tenets  upon  no  other  evidence  but  respect 
and  custom,  and  think  they  must  maintain  them,  or  all  is  gone ; 
though  they  have  never  examined  the  ground  they  stand  on,  nor 
have  ever  made  them  out  to  themselves,  or  can  make  them  out  to 
others.  We  should  contend  earnestly  for  the  truth :  but  we  should 
first  be  sure  that  it  is  truth,  or  else  we  fight  against  God,  who  is  the 


Vlll  PREFACE. 

God  of  truth,  and  do  the  work  of  the  Devil,  who  is  the  father  and 
propagator  of  lies ;  and  our  zeal,  though  ever  so  warm,  will  not 
excuse  us :  for  this  is  plainly  prejudice.  Secondly,  he  must  try 
whether  his  principles  be  certainly  true  or  not,  and  how  fai'  he  may 
safely  rely  upon  them.  This,  whether  fewer  have  the  heart  or 
the  skill  to  do,  I  shall  not  determine  ;  but  this,  I  am  sure,  is  that 
which  every  one  ought  to  do  who  professes  to  love  truth,  and  would 
not  impose  upon  himself,  which  is  a  surer  way  to  be  made  a  fool  of 
than  by  being  exposed  to  the  sophistry  of  others." 

Yazoo  Citt,  January,  1855. 


THE    TECNOBAPTIST. 


§  1.  In  the  town  of resided  three  gentle- 
men, between  whom  existed  a  strong  attachment, 
greatly  enhanced  by  the  fact  that  they  were  devoted 
Christians,  though  of  different  denominations.  One 
was  an  Antipedobaptist ;  the  others,  Pedobaptists  : 
but,  of  the  latter,  one  was  of  the  Calvinistic,  the 
other  of  the  Arminian  school.  That  this  diver- 
sity may  be  the  more  easily  borne  in  mind,  they 
are  designated  by  names  which  will  serve  as  an 
index  to  their  respective  opinions.  Thus  the  Armi- 
nian is  called  Mr.  A. ;  he  of  Baptist  views  is  Mr. 
B. ;  and  the  Calvinist  is  Mr.  C. 

§  2.  Mr.  A.  and  Mr.  C.  had  often  deplored 
together  the  error  which  caused  their  friend  to 
withhold  from  baptism  an  interesting  family  of 
children  ;  and  after  many  consultations,  and  fre- 
quent prayers  for  a  better  guidance  than  their  own 
judgments,  they  determined  to  call  on  Mr.  B.,  and 
spend  a  day  in  endeavoring  to  lead  him  into  the  right 


2  THE   TECNOBAPTIST. 

way.     After  a  random  discussion  of  some  length, 
the  conversation  proceeded  as  follows  :  — 

§  3.  Mr.  A.  I  perceive,  Mr.  B.,  that  you  have 
well  fortified  yourself  in  your  opinion.  But  you 
should  not  confine  yourself  to  books  that  favor 
your  own  views. 

§  4.  Mr.  B.  Nor  have  I ;  for,  while  I  have  care- 
fully perused  every  treatise  I  have  been  able  to 
find  in  favor  of  infant-baptism,  I  have  studied  but 
one  book  against  it. 

Mr.  A.   And  what  book  is  that  ? 

§  5.     Mr.  B.   The  Bible. 

§  6.  Mr.  A.  Whether  that  book  be  for  or  against 
infant-baptism  is  the  very  point  in  issue  ;  and  it  is 
to  convince  you  that  the  Bible  favors  the  baptism 
of  infants  that  we  are  here  this  morning. 

§  7.  Mr.  B.  Then  let  the  discussion  proceed  no 
farther ;  for  it  can  lead  to  no  desirable  result.  Be- 
fore it  commenced,  you  had  begged  the  question, — 
had  assumed  that  you  are  right,  and  I  wrong ;  for 
this  is  implied  in  your  desire  to  convince  me.  If  I 
also  lay  claim  to  infallibility,  what  will  it  profit  us 
to  talk  farther  on  the  subject?  But,  my  friends, 
if  you  wish  to  investigate  this  important  point  with 
me,  —  desiring  sincerely,  not  to  force  upon  me  your 
own  preconceived  opinion,  but  that  we  may  all 
ascertain  what  is  the  truth,  —  I  will  cheerfully 
enter  into  the  investigation  with  you  in  the  same 
spirit. 


THE   TECNOBAPTIST.  6 

§  8.  3Ir.  A.  I  stand  reproved,  my  friend.  To 
enter  upon  an  intelligent  investigation  of  this  ques- 
tion, the  examiner  must  free  his  mind  from  all 
previous  bias  for  or  against  infant-baptism,  and  place 
before  him  the  simple  inquiry,  ''  Is  infanlrbaptism  a 
divine  institution,  or  is  it  not  ?  "  Let  us  approach 
this  question  with  a  love  and  desire  of  all  profitable 
truth;  putting  away  idleness,  prejudice,  and  worldly 
affections,  and  so  examine  our  opinions  to  the  bot- 
tom ;  being  prepared  in  mind  to  follow  God,  and 
God  only,  which  way  soever  he  shall  lead  us. 

§  9.  Mr.  C.  In  all  our  inquiries  concerning 
truth  and  duty,  we  are  to  be  guided  by  the  word 
of  God.  This  is  the  only  rule  of  our  faith  and 
practice  ;  and  from  this  we  are  to  learn  all  things 
which  the  Lord  requires  us  to  believe  and  observe 
and  do.  And,  while  we  search  the  Scriptures  with 
an  earnest  desire  to  know  the  truth,  we  may  not 
trust  to  our  own  wisdom,  but  as  we  are  directed  by 
the  wise  man :  "  Trust  in  the  Lord  with  all  thy  heart, 
and  lean  not  unto  thine  own  understanding.  In 
all  thy  ways  acknowledge  him,  and  he  will  direct 
thy  paths."  The  church  suffers  much  from  men 
who  interpret  the  -Scriptures  according  to  the  rea- 
sonableness and  fitness  of  things,  or  according  to 
their  preconceived  opinions.  These  come  to  the 
word  of  God,  not  so  much  to  learn  what  is  true,  as 
to  seek  if  they  can  find  something  in  the  Scrip- 
tures to  prove  and  establish  what  they  have  already 


4  THE   TECNOBAPTIST. 

judged  to  be  true  by  a  certain  process  of  reasoning. 
And  many  seek  the  truth,  and  find  it  not ;  because 
they  trust  to  their  own  ability,  lean  to  their  own 
understandings,  and  neglect  to  ask  wisdom  of  God. 
They  ask  not  the  Spirit  of  truth  to  guide  them  unto 
all  truth  :  hence  they  are  led  away  into  all  manner 
of  errors  and  delusions  ;  and  thus  the  church  is 
divided,  troubled,  distracted,  rent,  and  torn  as  by 
an  evil  spirit.  Let  us  now,  as  humble  disciples  of 
Christ,  come  to  the  word  of  God,  that  we  may  learn 
what  is  his  will ;  casting  off  all  prejudice,  all  self- 
confidence,  and  seeking  the  teaching  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  that  we  may  be  guided  to  the  truth,  —  that 
we  may  understand  to  whom  it  is  the  will  of  the 
Lord  that  we  should  administer  the  ordinance  of 
baptism. 

§  10.  Mr.  B.  That  I  will  cheerfully  do  ;  for  I 
can  truly  say,  in  the  language  of  Chillingworth, 
"  I  know  no  opinion  I  have,  which  I  would  not  as 
willingly  forsake  as  keep,  if  I  could  see  sufficient 
reason  to  induce  me  to  believe  that  it  is  the  will  of 
God  I  should  forsake  it."  Mr.  C.,  will  you  present 
our  petition  to  the  throne  of  grace  ? 

§  11.  Mr.  C.  [All  kneeling.]  0  Lord  God,  the 
only  wise  !  we  would  make  our  prayer  before  thee, 
that  we  may  understand  thy  truth.  Thy  wisdom  is 
infinite.  Thou  art  light,  and  in  thee  is  no  dark- 
ness at  all.  Thou  by  wisdom  hast  founded  the  earth, 
by  understanding  hast   established   the   heavens  ; 


THE  TECNOBAPTIST.  5 

and  by  thy  knowledge  the  depths  are  broken  up,  and 
the  clouds  drop  down  rain.  We  are  but  of  yester- 
day, and  know  nothing.  We  grope  in  noonday  as 
the  blind  gropeth  in  darkness.  But  the  entrance  of 
thy  word  giveth  light :  it  giveth  understanding  to 
the  simple.  And  we  thank  thee,  and  praise  thy 
glorious  name,  because,  when  we  received  thy  word, 
we  received  it  not  as  the  word  of  men,  but  (as 
it  is  in  truth)  the  word  of  God,  which  effectually 
worketh  in  those  who  believe.  Yet,  0  Lord  !  who 
can  know  his  errors  ?  Be  it  indeed  that  we  have 
erred  concerning  the  truth,  —  that  we  have  gone 
astray  like  lost  sheep.  0  Father  !  for  his  sake  who 
was  made  flesh,  and  dwelt  among  us  full  of  grace 
and  truth ;  who  was  called  for  a  light  of  the  Gen- 
tiles, to  open  the  eyes  of  the  blind,  —  for  his  sake, 
seek  thy  servants.  Send  thy  light  and  thy  truth, 
and  let  them  lead  us.  To  thee,  0  holy  Word  of  God ! 
to  thee  we  cry,  like  blind  Bartimeus,  "  Lord,  that 
we  may  receive  our  sight !  "  Anoint  our  eyes  with 
eye-salve,  that  we  may  see,  and  not  err  in  vision,  or 
stumble  in  judgment.  Thou  who  wert  meek  and 
lowly  in  heart,  grant  that  we  may  put  on  humble- 
ness of  mind,  and  meekness  ;  that  we  walk  not 
after  our  own  desires,  but  seek  to  know  and  do  thy 
will ;  that  we  be  not  wise  in  our  own  eyes,  nor  lean 
to  our  own  understanding  ;  but  receive  the  love  of 
the  truth,  and  learn  of  thee,  who  only  art  a  guide 
of  the  blind,  a  light  of  them  who  are  in  darkness, 

1* 


6  THE  TECNOBAPTIST. 

an  instructor  of  the  foolish,  a  teacher  of  babes. 
Give  us  understanding,  and  we  shall  keep  thy  law ; 
yea,  we  shall  observe  it  with  our  hearts.  And  now 
to  Him  who  is  able  to  keep  us  from  falling,  and  to 
present  us  faultless  before  the  presence  of  his  glory 
with  exceeding  joy,  —  to  the  only  wise  God  our 
Saviour,  —  be  glory  and  majesty,  dominion  and 
power,  both  now  and  ever.     Amen. 

§  12.  Mr.  B.  Now,  my  friends  and  brothers  in 
Christ,  we  may  hope,  that,  in  what  we  are  about  to 
undertake,  nothing  will  be  done  through  strife  or 
vainglory,  but  in  lowliness  of  mind,  in  an  humble, 
childlike,  teachable  spirit,  as  becomes  those  who 
profess  to  love  the  God  of  truth.  In  the  course  of 
the  investigation,  it  is  natural  that  each  one  of  us 
should  be  most  clear-sighted  and  quick  in  detecting 
what  will  favor  his  own  views.  And  it  is  better  that 
it  should  be  thus  ;  for  it  will  insure  the  proper  con- 
sideration of  every  thing  which  can  weigh  in  either 
scale.  Then,  while  investigating  "  the  law  and  the 
testimony,"  let  each  one  act  as  the  advocate  of  his 
own  opinion  ;  but,  in  deliberating  and  deciding,  we 
must  throw  aside  the  advocate,  form  ourselves  into 
an  impartial  jury,  "  and  a  true  verdict  give  accord- 
ing to  the  law  and  the  evidence."  Since  we  have 
not  time  to  explore  the  whole  field,  I  leave  you  to 
select  that  one  argument  which  you  consider  the 
most  conclusive  in  favor  of  infant-baptism,  —  that 
one  on  which  you  are  most  willing  to  rest  your 


THE  TECNOBAPTIST.  7 

cause ;  and  I  agree  to  let  that  settle  the  question 
between  us,  if  you  also  will  abide  by  it.  We  may 
all  safely  agree  to  this,  since  a  truth  established  by 
one  incontestable  argument  is  as  impregnable  as  if 
established  by  a  thousand. 

§  13.  Mr.  A.  We  approve  your  suggestion  ;  and 
I  propose  the  argument  derived  from  the  rite  of  cir- 
cumcision. 

§  14.  Mr.  C.  That  is  also  my  choice  ;  for  I 
regard  that  argument  as  perfectly  unanswerable. 
But  I  am  satisfied  that  one  chief  reason  why  discus- 
sions so  seldom  lead  to  conviction  on  either  side  is, 
that  men  begin  to  argue  without  having  any  facts 
or  principles  agreed  upon  as  true.  This  is  like 
making  fast  a  boat  to  a  floating  log.  Euclid  com- 
mences with  axioms  which  cannot  be  denied,  and 
postulates  which  must  be  conceded ;  and  afterward 
asserts  nothing  but  what  is  thus  agreed  upon,  or  is 
proved  from  these  premises.  Hence  every  proposi- 
tion is  established  by  a  course  of  reasoning  which 
cannot  fail  to  carry  conviction  to  every  mind.  Let 
us  endeavor  to  imitate  Euclid,  setting  forth  first 
those  points  on  which  we  can  all  agree.  If  we 
admit  none  but  what  are  true,  I  agree,  with  Stewart 
and  Mill,  that  "  we  may  obtain  a  series  of  conclu- 
sions as  certain  as  those  of  geometry,  and  as  irre- 
sistibly compelling  assent."  ^ 

1  Stewart's  "Philosophy  of  the  Mind,"  part  ii.  chap.  2,  §  3.  Mill's 
•'  System  of  Logic,"  b.  ii.  chap.  5,  ^  1. 


8  THE  TECNOBAPTIST. 

§  15.  Mr.  A.  Your  suggestion  is  excellent ;  and 
I  agree  with  you  as  to  the  probable  result.  Let  us 
adopt  substantially  the  rule  laid  down  for  himself 
by  Dr.  Jarvis,  in  his  ''  Chronological  Introduction 
to  the  History  of  the  Church  "  (p.  5),  thus  :  — 

§  16.  "  The  great  object  to  be  constantly  kept  in 
view  shall  be  the  investigation  of  truth  for  its  own 
sake ;  and  to  that  end,  testimony,  and  fair  deduc- 
tions therefrom,  shall  be  followed  whithersoever 
they  may  lead." 

§  17.  Mr.  C.  I  presume  that  we  all  agree  that 
an  express  command  from  God  is  not  necessary  to 
establish  what  is  his  will  on  any  point,  but  fair  and 
legitimate  inference  is  equally  obligatory  upon  us ; 
and  such  inference  may  be  drawn  from  the  analogy 
furnished  by  the  history  of  the  Old-Testament 
.church.  If  this  be  not  objected  to,  it  will  be  taken 
for  granted. 

§  18.  Well :  God  commanded  Moses  at  Mount 
Sinai  to  submit  to  the  people  this  proposal :  "If 
ye  will  obey  my  voice  indeed,  and  keep  my  covenant, 
then  ye  shall  be  a  peculiar  treasure  unto  me  above 
all  people  ;  and  ye  shall  be  unto  me  a  kingdom  of 
priests,  and  a  holy  nation."  ^  It  is  plain,  that,  if 
Israel  became  to  God  "  a  kingdom  of  priests,"  then 
God  was  their  king :  if  so,  "  the  kingdom  of  God," 
in  its  highest  sense,  was  proposed  to  be  established 
at  Mount  Sinai.     But  was  it  actually  there  esta- 

1  Exod.  xix.  5,  6. 


THE  TECNOBAPTIST.  » 

blished  ?  I  reply,  that,  when  Moses  laid  God's  pro- 
posal before  the  people,  "  all  the  people  answered 
together,  and  said,  All  that  the  Lord  hath  spoken 
we  will  do."^  Here,  by  a  unanimous  vote,  the 
nation  acceded  to  the  proposal,  and  thus,  by  their 
own  voluntary  act,  became  God's  kingdom. 

§  19.  Mr.  A.  Again  :  it  will  not  be  questioned 
that  St.  Stephen  alluded  to  the  posterity  of  Abra- 
ham,, the  Israelitish  nation,  when  he  said  that  Moses 
"  was  in  the  church  in  the  wilderness." 

§  20.  Mr.  C.  Thus  the  natural  seed  of  Abra- 
ham, in  the  line  of  Isaac  and  Jacob,  constituted  the 
kingdom,  or  visible  church,  of  God,  until  the  com- 
ing of  Christ.     Then  we  may  agree,  that, — 

§  21.  Before  the  coming  of  Christ,  the  visible 
church,  or  kingdom  of  God,  consisted  of  the  Israel- 
itish nation,  who  were  the  seed  of  Abraham,  born  of 
the  flesh. 

§  22.  It  is  equally  clear,  that  every  child  born 
of  Israelitish  parents  was  one  of  the  natural  seed  of 
Abraham  by  the  very  fact  of  its  birth.  It  was  born 
into  the  Israelitish  nation;  and,  that  nation  being 
the  church  of  God,  it  follows  that  it  was  a  regular 
church-member  in  virtue  of  its  birth.  We  can 
agree,  therefore,  that, — 

§  23.  In  the  Old-Testament  church,  the  children 
of  Israelitish  parents  became  members  by  the  fact  of 
birth,  and  stood  toward  that  church  in  the  relation 
of  membership  by  the  fact  of  birth. 

1  Exod.  xix.  8. 


10  THE   TECNOBAPTIST. 

§  24.  Mr.  A.  There  can  be  no  controversy  be- 
tween ns  as  to  the  fact,  that,  in  the  Old-Testament 
church,  the  token  of  God's  covenant,  and  the  out- 
ward sign  of  membership,  was  circumcision  ;  nor 
as  to  the  following  propositions  :  — 

§  25.  The  infant  child  of  Israelitish  parents,  if 
a  male,  was  circumcised  on  the  eighth  day  after  he 
was  born.^ 

§  26.  A  stranger  sojourning  in  Israel,  and  wish- 
ing to  keep  the  passover,  was  required  to  be  circum- 
cised, with  all  his  males. ^ 

§  27.  M?'.  B.  It  may  be  advisable  to  mention 
here  the  only  remaining  subjects  of  circumcision. 

§28.  Mr.  C.  By  all  means.  Any  servant  whom 
an  Israelite  bought  with  money  of  any  stranger 
must  needs  be  circumcised.^ 

§  29.  Mr.  A.  When  John  the  Baptist  and  Jesus 
said,  "  The  kingdom  of  heaven  is  at  hand,"  and  "•  is 
nigh  unto  you,"  they  evidently  alluded  to  the  spirit- 
ual reign  of  the  Messiah.  "  The  kingdom  of  Christ," 
"  the  kingdom  of  God,"  "  the  kingdom  of  heaven," 
are  phrases  which  all  signify  the  gospel  dispensation. 
Thus,  in  the  discourse  with  Nicodemus,*  Jesus  uses 
the  phrase  "  kingdom  of  God  "  to  express  the  state 
of  the  church  on  earth,  which  is  the  gate  to  the 
celestial  kingdom ;  and  generally,  indeed,  speaks  of 
his  church  on  earth  under  this  mode  of  expression, 
rather  than  the  heavenly  state. 

1  Lev.  xii.  1-3.  8  Gen.  xvii.  12,  13. 

2  Exod.  xii.  48.  4  John  iii.  3,  5. 


THE   TECNOBAPTIST.  11 

§  30.  Mr.  C.  All  that  our  blessed  Saviour  said 
to  Nicodemus  applies  only  to  the  visible  church, 
or  kingdom  of  God  in  this  world,  and  not  to  the 
church  in  its  triumphant  state,  or  kingdom  of  God 
in  heaven.  This  is  absolutely  certain  from  his  own 
words :  "  If  I  have  told  you  of  earthly  things,  and 
ye  believe  not,  how  shall  ye  believe  if  I  tell  you  of 
heavenly  things  ?  "  ^  Let  any  one  impartially  exar 
mine  the  evangelists,  and  he  will  find  this  to  be  the 
general  import  of  the  phrase  in  question. 

§  31.  Mr.  A.  Let  it  be  agreed,  then,  that  the 
phrases  "  kingdom  of  heaven "  and  "  kingdom  of 
God  "  —  as  used  in  Matt,  xviii.  3,  xix.  14,  xxi.  43 ; 
Mark  x.  14,  15 ;  Luke  xviii.  16,  17 ;  and  John  iii. 
3,  5  —  are  to  be  understood  as  referring  to  the 
Christian  church  on  earth. 

§  32.  Well :  Jesus  said  to  the  chief  priests  and 
Pharisees,  "  The  kingdom  of  heaven  shall  be  taken 
from  you,  and  given  to  a  nation  bringing  forth  the 
fruits  thereof."  ^  Does  not  such  language  indicate 
the  transfer  of  a  kingdom  already  existing,  rather 
than  the  beginning  of  an  entirely  new  one  ? 

§  33.  Mr.  C.  The  Apostle  Paul  speaks  of  the 
church  under  the  similitude  of  an  olive-tree.^  We 
understand  the  good  olive-tree  to  represent  the 
church  of  the  Jews,  or,  what  is  the  same  thing, 
the  church  which  was  planted  under  the  Old-Testa- 
ment dispensation  ;  and  the  Gentiles  were  the  wild 

1  John  iii.  12.  2  Matt.  xxi.  43.  3  Rom.  xi.  16,  24. 


12  THE   TECNOBAPTIST. 

olive-tree.  Well :  observe  what  the  Lord  has  done 
to  this  good  olive-tree.  It  has  not  been  destroyed, 
and  another  tree  planted  ;  but  the  unfruitful 
branches  were  taken  away.  And  the  Gentiles  were 
not  pruned  and  cultivated  as  a  separate  tree,  but 
were  cut  out  of  the  tree  which  is  wild  by  nature, 
and  were  grafted,  contrary  to  nature,  into  the  good 
olive-tree,  —  the  same  from  which  the  others  were 
broken  off.  And,  when  the  Jews  shall  be  brought 
in,  they  will  not  be  grafted  into  another  tree,  but 
into  their  own  olive-tree,  —  the  same  from  which 
they  were  broken  off.  Can  any  thing  be  more  point- 
edly descriptive  of  identity  ? 

§  34.  Mr.  A.  How  could  the  apostle  call  the 
church  "  their  own  olive-tree,"  and  them  "  the  na- 
tural branches,"  if  it  were  not  the  same  tree  from 
which  they  were  broken  off? 

§  35.  Mr.  C.  The  church  is  the  same  in  sub- 
stance now  that  it  was  under  the  old  dispensation. 
There  is  a  difference,  but  not  essential.  The  church 
is  enlarged,  and  rendered  more  spiritual ;  and  there 
is  a  change  of  external  rites.  Under  the  old  dis- 
pensation, the  privileges  of  the  church  were  confined 
to  the  Jews  ;  but  now  the  middle  wall  of  partition 
is  broken  down,  and  these  privileges  are  extended 
to  the  Greeks,  Scythians,  Barbarians,  and  to  all  the 
nations  of  the  earth.  The  relation  of  the  natural 
seed  of  Abraham  to  God,  signified  by  the  name 
"  Israelite,"  prefigured  the  more  honorable  relation 


THE   TECNOBAPTIST.  13 

which  believers,  tlie  true  Israel,  stand  in  to  God. 
Hence  we  may  agree  upon  this  proposition  :  — 

§  36.  The  New-Testament  church,  or  Christian 
church,  is  the  same  as  the  Old-Testament  church, 
only  rendered  more  spiritual,  and  with  a  change  of 
external  rites.  It  consists  no  longer  of  the  seed 
of  Abraham  born  of  the  flesh,  but  of  the  spiritual 
seed  of  Abraham. 

§  37.  Mr.  B.  I  will  not  object  to  that  proposi- 
tion ;  but  will  you  explain  how  we  can  become  the 
seed  of  Abraham  if  we  be  not  born  so,  and  how  we 
can  become  his  spiritual  seed  ? 

§  38.  Mr.  C.  Like  Nicodemus,  you  would  know 
"  how  can  these  things  be  ? "  I  will  endeavor  to 
explain  by  setting  before  you  the  discourse  of  Jesus 
with  Nicodemus.  The  Jews  believed,  that,  by  virtue 
of  being  the  natural  descendants  of  Abraham,  and  of 
those  among  whom  the  kingdom  of  God  was  at  first 
established,  they  would  enjoy  peculiar  privileges 
when  the  King  should  make  his  visible  appearance 
in  the  person  of  the  Messiah.  It  was  to  correct  this 
error  that  John  warned  them :  "  Think  not  to  say 
within  yourselves.  We  have  Abraham  to  our  father." 
And  Jesus,  to  remove  this  error,  taught  Nicodemus. 
that  the  children  of  the  flesh  are  not  counted  for  the 
seed  of  Abraham  in  the  divine  promise  ;  and,  of 
course,  that  his  being  a  lineal  descendant  of  this 
great  patriarch  gave  him  no  peculiar  advantages  in 
the  kingdom  of  God.     He  must  have  another  birth 

2 


14  THE   TECNOBAPTIST. 

before  he  could  even  see  it.  Nicodemus  had  no 
conce}3tion  of  what  Jesus  meant  by  another  birth. 
Jesus  in  the  most  solemn  manner  re-affirmed  what 
he  had  said,  and  explained  it :  "  Except  a  man  be 
born  of  water  and  of  the  Spirit,  he  cannot  enter 
into  the  kingdom  of  God."  Few  will  doubt  but  to 
be  born  of  water  is  to  be  baptized  ;  that  is,  baptism 
visibly  initiates  into  the  kingdom  of  God,  as  natural 
birth  makes  one  a  subject  of  that  government  into 
which  he  is  born.  Jesus  explained  the  matter  still 
farther  to  Nicodemus  by  appealing  to  the  known 
fact,  that  every  thing  which  propagates  at  all  propa- 
gates its  own  kind.  Consequently,  were  it  possible 
for  a  man  to  be  born  again  in  the  literal  sense  men- 
tioned by  Nicodemus,  by  entering  "  a  second  time 
into  his  mother's  womb,"  such  second  birth  would 
do  no  more  to  qualify  him  for  the  kingdom  of  God 
than  the  first :  "for  that  which  is  born  of  the  flesh 
is  "  only  "  flesh  ;  "  and  what  proceeds,  as  we  all  do, 
from  parents  who  are  sinful  and  corrupt,  is  sinful 
and  corrupt  as  they  are.  But  God,  being  spiritual, 
must  reign  in  a  spiritual  kingdom ;  and  of  course 
his  subjects  must  be  born  of  the  Spirit  before  they 
can  have  such  spiritual  nature  as  qualifies  one  for 
being  a  subject  of  his  kingdom  :  for  "  that  which  is 
born  of  the  Spirit"  is  formed  to  a  resemblance  of 
that  blessed  Spirit  whose  office  it  is  to  diffuse  a  divine 
life  into  the  soul.  And  as  mankind  have  material, 
fleshly  bodies   connected  with   their   spirits,  these 


THE   TECNOBAPTIST.  15 

bodies  must  be  born  of  water  to  enter  into  God's 
kingdom.  Thus  Jesus  demonstrates  to  Nicodemus 
that  they  who  are  born  of  the  flesh,  as  the  Jews 
were  born  of  Abraham,  cannot  enter  into  the  king- 
dom of  God  without  another  birth  ;  and  that  birth 
must  be  of  the  Divine  Spirit  as  to  their  spiritual 
nature,  and  of  purifying  water  as  to  their  fleshly 
nature. 

§  39.  3^r,  A.  The  descendants  of  Abraham,  the 
Jews,  were  chosen  to  be  "  the  people  of  God," — to 
be  his  visible  church.  But,  in  the  days  of  Christ,  a 
great  religious  revolution  occurred,  —  no  other  than 
the  abrogation  of  the  church  state  of  the  Jews  ;  for 
the  great  reason  of  their  peculiarity  and  election, 
as  a  nation,  was  terminated  by  the  coming  of  the 
Messiah.  Almighty  God  determined  no  longer  to 
found  his  church  upon  natural  descent  from  Abra- 
ham, in  the  line  of  Isaac  and  Jacob,  nor  in  any 
other  line  according  to  the  flesh  ;  but  to  make  faith 
in  his  Son  Jesus  Christ  the  gate  of  admission  into 
this  privilege.  There  was  a  new  election  of  a  new 
people  of  God,  —  to  be  composed  of  Jews,  not  by 
virtue  of  their  natural  descent,  but  of  their  faith  in 
Christ ;  and  of  Gentiles  of  all  nations,  also  believ- 
ing, and  put,  as  believers,  on  an  equal  ground  with 
the  believing  Jews.  Christians  became,  though  in 
a  more  special  and  exalted  sense,  the  chosen  people, 
—  the  elect  of  God.  The  entrance  into  the  Jewish 
church  was  by  natural  birth;  while  the  entrance 


16  THE   TECNOBAPTIST. 

into  the  Christian  church,  properly  so  called,  is  by 
faith  and  a  spiritual  birth.  In  his  interesting  dis- 
course witli  Nicodemus,  our  Lord  communicates  to 
him  the  fundamental  doctrines  of  the  Christian 
faith,  —  firstly,  the  necessity  of  new  birth,  or  re- 
generation, by  baptism  and  the  Holy  Spirit,  to  sal- 
vation ;  ^  secondly,  the  redemption  of  mankind  by 
the  death  of  Christ,  through  faith,  of  which  death  the 
brazen  serpent  was  a  type  ;2  and,  thirdly,  the  origi- 
nal cause  of  this  mode  of  redemption,  —  the  love  of 
God.^  He  declares  the  necessity  of  a  new  birth,  in 
contradistinction  to  our  natural  birth,  in  order  to 
our  entrance  into  tlie  kingdom  of  God ;  and  lays  it 
down,  that  the  Spirit  of  God  is  the  sole  author  of 
this  change,  for  that  all  births  answer  to  the  princi- 
ple which  causes  them.  As,  therefore,  the  carnal 
births  proceed  from  the  flesh,  so  a  spiritual  birth 
proceeds  from  the  Spirit  as  its  vital  principle ;  that 
what  is  born  of  the  flesh  cannot  alter  its  nature ; 
it  is  flesh  still,  and  must  always  remain  so,  and  in 
that  state  is  unfit  for  heaven.  In  like  manner, 
Jesus  describes  the  state  of  "  the  flesh,"  this  condi- 
tion of  entire  unfitness  for  the  kingdom  of  heaven, 
as  our  natural  state  ;  and,  to  make  this  the  stronger, 
he  refers  this  unfitness,  not  to  our  acquired  habits, 
but  to  the  state  in  which  we  are  born :  for  the  very 
reason  which  he  gives  for  tlie  necessity  of  a  new 
birth  is  because  "  that  which  is  born  of  the  flesh  is 

1  John  iii.  3-11.  2  John  iii.  12-15.  3  John  iii.  16-18. 


THE    TECNOBAPTIST.  17 

flesh,"  and  therefore  we  "  must  be  born  again." 
That  we  may  be  thus  born  of  the  Spirit,  we  must  be 
born  also  of  water ;  not  as  if  there  was  any  virtue 
in  water,  whereby  it  could  regenerate  us,  but  be- 
cause this  is  the  rite  or  ordinance  appointed  by 
Christ,  wherein  he  regenerates  us  by  his  Holy  Spirit; 
so  that  our  regeneration  is  wholly  the  act  of  the 
Spirit  of  Christ.  We  learn,  then,  from  the  discourse 
of  Jesus  with  Nicodemus,  and  from  various  other 
parts  of  the  Scriptures,  that  every  man  must  have 
two  births, —  one  from  heaven,  the  other  from  earth  ; 
one  of  his  body,  the  other  of  his  soul.  Without  the 
first,  he  cannot  see  nor  enjoy  this  world  :  without 
the  last,  he  cannot  see  nor  enjoy  the  kingdom  of  God. 
As  there  is  an  absolute  necessity  that  a  child  should 
be  born  into  the  world  that  he  may  see  its  light, 
contemplate  its  glories,  and  enjoy  its  good ;  so  there 
is  an  absolute  necessity  that  the  soul  should  be 
brought  out  of  its  state  of  darkness  and  sin  through 
the  light  and  power  of  the  grace  of  Christ,  that  it 
may  be  able  to  see  (idehi)  or  discern  the  glories 
and  excellences  of  the  kingdom  of  Christ  here,  and 
be  prepared  for  the  enjoyment  of  the  kingdom  of 
glory  hereafter. 

§  40.  Mr.  B.  Though  I  cannot  concur  in  all 
that  has  been  said,  yet  my  questions  have  been  an- 
swered well,  and  in  the  very  words  of  our  blessed 
Saviour.  First,  how  can  we  become  the  seed  of 
Abraham,  if  we  be  not  born  so  ?     "Ye  must  be  boru 

2* 


18  THE   TECNOBAPTIST. 

again."  Secondly,  how  can  we  become  his  spiritual 
seed  ?  "  That  which  is  born  of  the  Spirit  is  spirit : " 
hence  we  must  be  born  of  the  Spirit  to  become  the 
spiritual  seed  of  Abraham. 

§  41.  Mr.  C.  Then  we  are  agreed  thus  far  at 
least, —  that  those  who  are  born  of  the  flesh,  who- 
ever may  be  their  progenitors,  are  not  the  spiritual 
seed  of  Abraham,  and  cannot  enter  into  the  king- 
dom of  God,  or  church,  without  a  regeneration  and 
another  birth,  which  is  a  spiritual  birth,  or  being 
"born  of  the  Spirit." 

§  42.  3Tr.  B.  This  proposition  is  very  sweeping, 
including  the  whole  human  family.  Are  there  no 
exceptions  to  it  ? 

§  43.  Mr.  A.  None.  The  Lord  will  not  alter 
the  rules  of  admission  into  his  kingdom  to  humor 
the  prejudices  of  any  set  of  men  whatever. 

§  44.  Mr.  C.  The  proposition  is  not  more  sweep- 
ing than  the  declaration,  "  Except  a  man  be  born 
again,  he  cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God." 
Here  our  Saviour  has  taught  us  the  necessity  of 
regeneration.  All  persons,  without  exception,  are 
born  in  sin,  and  are  by  nature  tlie  children  of  wrath. 
In  this  natural  state,  man  cannot  see  nor  enter  into 
the  kingdom  of  God  ;  for  he  is  incapable  of  per- 
ceiving, understanding,  or  receiving  the  things  of 
the  Spirit  of  God.  He  must  be  born  again,  he 
must  become  a  new  creature,  or  he  will  not,  he  can- 
not, enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God.     In  the  natural 


THE   TECNOBAPTIST.  19 

state,  we  are  dead  in  trespasses  and  sins,  children 
of  wrath,  without  Christ,  aliens  from  the  common- 
wealth of  Israel.  Hence  it  is  evident,  that,  in  the 
natural  state,  we  are  separate  from  Christ :  it  is 
equally  plain  that  Christ's  people,  whom  he  has 
quickened,  are  united  to  him  by  the  Spirit  of  Christ, 
which  he  has  given  them.  Thus  there  was  a  time 
when  Christ's  people  were  separate  from  him  ;  and 
afterwards  there  is  a  time  when  they  are  found  in 
union  with  him.  Then  it  follows,  of  course,  that 
there  was  a  time  with  every  one  of  them  when  they 
were  brought  into  union  with  Christ.  Adult  be- 
lievers are  united  to  Christ,  or  ingrafted  into  Christ, 
by  his  Spirit  which  is  in  tliem  ;  for  they  have  faith  by 
his  Spirit.  Regeneration  is  inseparably  connected 
with  this  union  of  the  believer  with  Christ :  it  is 
the  effect  of  our  being  ingrafted  into  Christ,  or  of 
our  union  with  him,  by  having  his  Spirit  within  us. 

§  45.  Mr.  B.  How  are  this  spiritual  regeneration 
and  birth  effected  ?     By  baptism  ? 

§  46.  Mr.  A.  This  needful  and  most  blessed 
change  is  wrought  by  means  of  the  sacred  word  of 
divine  life,  which  is  the  seed  of  eternal  life.^ 

§  47.  Mr.  C.  Regeneration  is  not  effected  by 
baptism  ;  for  it  is  the  work  of  God  :  neither  is  bap- 
tism to  be  accounted  as  a  means  of  regeneration  ; 
for  the  believer  to  whom  baptism  is  to  be  admini- 
stered is  regenerate  already.     Faith  is  a  fruit  of  the 

1  1  Pet.  i.  23. 


20  THE    TECNOBAPTIST. 

Spirit,  and  an  evidence  of  regeneration.  Therefore 
he  is  not  baptized  as  a  means  by  which  he  may  be 
regenerated  ;  but,  because  he  is  a  regenerate  person, 
he  receives  the  sign  and  token  of  God's  covenant ; 
by  which  is  also  signified  the  work  which  the  Lord 
lias  wrought  by  means  of  his  word.  That  it  is  by 
means  of  the  word  appears  from  James  i.  18  :  ''  Of 
his  own  will  begat  he  us  with  the  word  of  truth  ; " 
and  this  by  the  instrumentality  of  his  ministering 
servants,  by  whom  the  gospel  is  preached  ;  as  says 
the  Apostle  Paul,  "  In  Christ  Jesus,  I  have  begotten 
you  through  the  gospel."  ^ 

§  48.  Mr.  A.  We  all  agree  that  regeneration 
and  the  new  birth  are  the  work  of  the  Spirit  of  God, 
wrought  by  means  of  his  word  ;  and  this  by  the 
instrumentality  of  his  ministering  servants,  by  whom 
the  gospel  is  preached. 

§  49.  We  have  seen,  that,  in  the  Old-Testament 
church,  the  external  rite  denoting  entrance  into 
the  church  was  circumcision  ;  but,  in  the  New- 
Testament  church,  baptism  took  its  place. 

§  50.  Mr.  C.  All  who  are  born  of  the  Spirit  will 
surely  enter  into  God's  kingdom  above,  even  though 
for  want  of  opportunity,  like  the  thief  on  the  cross, 
they  may  not  be  baptized.  But  baptism  being  the 
introductory  ordinance  by  which  we  are  received 
or  recognized  as  members  of  the  visible  church, 
which  is  God's   kingdom   on  earth,  none   can   be 

1  1  Cor.  iv.  15. 


THE   TECNOBAPTIST.  21 

admitted  without  baptism  ;  and  as  all  unbaptized 
persons  are  excluded  from  the  church,  or  kingdom 
on  earth,  so  all  unregenerate  persons  will  be  ex- 
cluded from  the  kingdom  of  God  in  heaven.  When 
we  say  that  baptism  has  taken  tlie  place  of  circum- 
cision, we  mean,  not  merely  that  circumcision  is 
laid  aside  in  the  church  of  Christ,  and  that  baptism 
has  been  brought  in ;  but  that  baptism  occupies,  in 
the  evangelical  dispensation,  the  place  of  circumci- 
sion under  the  Levitical,  as  the  appointed  initiatory 
ordinance  in  the  church  ;  and  that,  as  a  moral  em- 
blem, it  means  the  same  thing,  —  being  the  outward 
and  visible  sign  of  the  same  inward  and  spiritual 
grace  :  for  circumcision  was  a  seal,  not  merely  of 
temporal  promises,  but  of  the  covenant  of  grace.^ 

§  51.  Mr.  A.  If  no  objection  be  interposed,  we 
will  consider  it  settled,  that,  in  the  New-Testament 
church,  or  Christian  church,  baptism  is  adopted  in 
the  place  of  circumcision  ;  and  is  to  the  New-Testa- 
ment church,  and  to  the  proper  subjects  of  baptism, 
what  circumcision  was  to  the  Old-Testament  church, 
and  to  tlie  proper  subjects  of  circumcision. 

§  52.  Mr.  C.  Some  Baptists  know  so  little  of 
the  sentiments  of  their  brethren,  that  they  suppose 
adult-baptism  to  be  entirely  rejected  by  Pedobaptists. 
I  know  you  are  not  of  this  number  ;  yet,  in  matters 
of  controversy,  it  will  greatly  facilitate  our  searcli  to 
set  aside  all  those  things  about  which  we  are  agreed, 

1  Rom.  iv.  11. 


22  THE   TECNOBAPTIST. 

and  fix  our  attention  only  to  that  on  which  there  is 
a  difference.  Among  the  points  of  agreement,  we 
must  therefore  mention  that  — 

§  53.  All  true  believers  in  Christ,  who  have  not 
been  previously  baptized,  are  proper  subjects  of 
baptism ;  but  no  adult  is  a  proper  subject,  without 
faith. 

§  54.  Mr.  B.  Some  of  the  propositions  which 
you  state  as  agreed  are  moot-points  ;  and  I  do  not 
wish  to  be  understood  as  giving  my  unqualified 
assent  to  all  of  them,  except  for  the  purposes  of 
the  present  inquiry.  With  this  explanation,  I 
consent  that  all  these  points  be  regarded  as  fixed 
truths. 

§  55.  Mr.  A.  Let  us,  then,  proceed  to  consider 
the  question.  Is  infant-baptism  a  divine  institution, 
or  is  it  not  ?  That  it  is  so,  follows  inevitably  from 
"  the  analogy  furnished  by  the  history  of  the  Old- 
Testament  church  "  (§  17).  The  Old  and  New  Tes- 
tament churches  are  in  substance  the  same,  though 
under  different  dispensations  (§  36).  While,  there- 
fore, the  most  perfect  parallel  can  be  drawn  between 
the  two,  among  other  particulars,  baptism,  by  divine 
authority,  has  taken  the  place  of  circumcision 
(§  51).  We  should  expect,  therefore,  to  find  the 
former  in  every  respect  answering  to  the  latter ; 
and  so  it  does. 

§  56.  Mr.  C.  Just  so.  Whatever  belonged  to 
circumcision,  except  the  difference  of  visible  cere- 


THE   TECNOBAPTIST.  23 

mony,  belongs  also  to  baptism  :  they  were  initia- 
tory rites  of  the  same  covenant  at  different  periods. 
But  the  change  of  the  initiatory  rite  made  no  change 
in  the  subjects  of  the  covenant.  Baptism  is  right- 
fully and  properly  applied  to  the  same  subjects  as 
circumcision. 

§  57.  Mr.  A.  Faith  in  Christ  was  an  indispen- 
sable condition  for  circumcision  of  persons  of  mature 
age  ;  and  it  is  an  indispensable  condition  for  baptism 
also  in  all  persons  of  an  age  at  which  they  are  capa- 
ble of  exercising  faith.  But,  by  the  express  direction 
of  God,  an  exception  was  made  to  this  requisition  in 
favor  of  the  children  of  Israelitish  parents  ;  and  they 
were  commanded  to  be  circumcised,  as  well  as  those 
who  had  faith  (§  25). 

§  58.  Mr.  C.  If  there  were  no  absurdity  in  that 
command,  neither  can  there  be  in  baptizing  infants. 
The  children  of  Jews  were  circumcised,  when  they 
certainly  had  as  yet  no  idea  of  the  intent  and  mean- 
ing of  this  religious  rite.  According  to  this  analo- 
gy, children  among  Christians  may  be  baptized  even 
during  those  years  when  they  cannot  as  yet  under- 
stand any  thing  of  the  design  of  the  rite,  or  make  any 
profession  of  their  faith.  Their  right  to  the  one  ordi- 
nance must  be  the  same  as  it  was  to  the  other.  If 
they  were  formerly  capable  of  receiving  a  seal  of  the 
covenant  of  grace,  which  proves  that  they  were  then 
within  the  verge  of  that  covenant,  how  they  came 
to  be  now  cast  out  of  the  covenant,  and  incapable 


24  THE   TECNOBAPTIST. 

of  the  seal,  and  by  what  severe  sentence  they  were 
thus  rejected  and  incapacitated,  those  are  concerned 
to  make  out  that  not  only  reject,  but  nullify  and 
reproach,  the  baptism  of  the  seed  of  believers. 

§  59.  Mr.  A.  If  they  are  to  be  debarred  now 
because  they  have  not  faith  in  God,  surely  they 
should  have  been  debarred  on  the  same  ground 
under  the  Mosaic  economy.  It  follows  as  a  neces- 
sary consequence,  that  the  children  of  believing 
parents,  under  the  gospel,  have  the  same  right  to 
baptism  that  the  children  of  Jewish  parents  had 
to  circumcision  under  the  law,  unless  their  rights 
have  been  repealed  or  abridged. 

§  60.  Mr.  C.  And  unless  there  can  be  found 
some  positive  divine  enactment  or  declaration  ex- 
cluding them. 

§  61.  3Ir.  A.  The  absence  of  an  explicit  exclu- 
sion is  sufficient  proof  of  their  title  to  baptism. 

§  62.  Mr.  B.  Gentlemen,  our  agreed  points  were 
all  proposed  by  yourselves  ;  yet  you  seem  to  have 
forgotten  one  of  them  already,  and  a  very  impor- 
tant one.  You  now  demand  an  explicit  exclusion 
of  infants  from  baptism  by  a  positive  diviiie  enact- 
ment, though  it  was  agreed  that  "  an  express  com- 
mand from  God  is  not  necessary  to  establish  what  is 
his  will  upon  any  point,  but  fair  and  legitimate 
inference  is  equally  obligatory  upon  us"  (§  17). 
If,  then,  it  appear  from  such  inference  that  it  is  now 
God's  will  to  exclude  infants  from  baptism,  you 


THE   TECNOBAPTIST.  25 

cannot  demand  a  positive  enactment.  It  does  not 
seem  fair  to  mount  up  to  your  conclusion  by  the  lad- 
der of  inference  and  analogy,  and  then  to  destroy 
that  ladder,  lest  I  should  climb  to  some  other  con- 
clusion. Stripped  of  these  objectionable  and  erro- 
neous expressions,  the  conclusion  at  which  you 
arrive  seems  almost,  if  not  altogether,  inevitable. 
To  be  candid,  I  cannot  see  how  it  is  possible  to 
resist  the  conclusion,  that,  if  baptism  under  the 
evangelical  dispensation  take  the  place  of  circum- 
cision under  the  Levitical,  the  analogy  must  be 
extended  to  the  persons  entitled  to  receive  the  rite 
of  circumcision  under  the  one  dispensation,  and  of 
baptism  under  the  other.  But  let  us  apply  your 
process  of  reasoning  to  another  class  of  persons. 
"  Any  servant  whom  an  Israelite  bought  with  money 
of  any  stranger  must  needs  be  circumcised"  (§  28)» 
If,  in  a  land  where  involuntary  servitude  exists^ 
a  believer  should  buy  an  unbaptized  servant  from  a 
Mussulman,  or  other  stranger  to  the  covenant  of 
grace,  must  that  servant  needs  be  baptized  ? 

§  63.  Mr.  A.  As,  in  the  gospel-covenant  which 
was  made  with  Abraham,  all  the  children  of  whom 
the  Israelites  had  the  care,  not  more  he  who  was 
born  in  their  houses  than  he  who  was  bought  with 
money  of  any  stranger  that  was  not  of  their  seed, 
was  to  be  circumcised,  so  the  church  is  bound  to 
extend  her  pastoral  care  to  every  child  within  her 
reach. 

3 


26  THE   TECNOBAPTIST. 

§  64.  Mr.  C.  If  the  servant  be  an  infant,  he 
should  be  admitted  to  baptism  on  the  faith  of  the 
master ;  but  not  if  an  adult  (§  53). 

§  Qb.  Mr.  B.  What,  then,  becomes  of  "  the  ana- 
logy furnished  by  the  history  of  the  Old-Testament 
church  "  ?  (§  17.)  Why  do  you  not  require  faith  in 
the  infant  ?  Because,  "  by  the  express  direction  of 
God,  an  exception  was  made  in  favor  of  infants  ; 
and  they  were  admitted  to  baptism  without  personal 
faith"  (§  57).  Exactly  the  same  exception  was 
made  in  favor  of  servants,  without  any  reference  to 
their  age.  "  He  that  is  born  in  thy  house,  and  he 
that  is  bought  with  thy  money  of  any  stranger  which 
is  not  of  thy  seed,  must  needs  be  circumcised."  ^  If 
we  take  your  argument  for  infants,  and  substitute 
the  words  "masters"  for  "parents,"  and  "servants" 
for  "  children,"  the  necessity  of  baptizing  servants 
is  as  firmly  established  by  the  argument  as  is  the 
necessity  of  baptizing  infants.  Nay,  by  assuming 
that  infant-baptism  is  scriptural,  we  can  make  that 
a  link  in  the  chain  of  argument  in  favor  of  servant- 
baptism,  and  thus  give  it  the  additional  force  of 
another  resemblance  between  the  two  dispensations. 
The  argument  would  stand  thus  :  — 

§  QQ.  Baptism  has  taken  the  place  of  circumci- 
sion, and  answers  to  it  in  every  respect  (§  bb). 
The  change  of  the  initiatory  rite  made  no  change 
in  the  subjects  of  the  covenant.     Baptism  is  right- 

1  Gen.  xvii.  12,  13. 


THE   TECNOBAPTIST.  27 

fully  and  properly  applied  to  the  same  subjects  as 
circumcision  (§  56).  Faith  in  Christ  was  an  indis- 
pensable condition,  for  either  rite,  in  persons  of 
mature  age  (§  57).  An  exception  was  made  to  this 
requisition  in  favor  of  infants,  and  they  were  cir- 
cumcised as  well  as  believers ;  and  so  now  the  like 
exception  is  made,  and  they  are  baptized.  But,  by 
the  express  direction  of  God,  another  exception  was 
made  in  favor  of  the  servants  of  Jewish  masters  ; 
and  it  was  commanded  that  they  should  be  circum- 
cised, as  well  as  those  who  had  faith  (§  57).  If  there 
were  no  absurdity  in  that  command,  neither  can 
there  be  in  baptizing  servants.  Their  right  to  the 
one  ordinance  must  be  the  same  as  it  was  to 
the  other  (§  58).  As  they  were  not  debarred  for 
want  of  faith  under  the  Mosaic  economy,  neither 
can  they  be  now.  The  servants  of  Christian  mas- 
ters have  the  same  right  to  baptism  under  the 
gospel  which  the  servants  of  Jewish  masters  had 
under  the  law,  unless  their  rights  have  been  repealed 
or  abridged  (§  59). 

§  67.  What  is  the  result  ?  As  faith  was  not 
required  of  the  servant  as  a  prerequisite  io  circum- 
cision, it  cannot.be  required  as  a  prerequisite  ta 
baptism.  As  the  servant  might  then  have  been  an 
adult,  so  may  he  be  now  ;  as  he  might  then  have 
been  an  idolater,  so  may  he  now  be  an  idolater,  fresh 
from  the  wilds  of  Africa.  Yet  your  argument,  mii- 
tatis  mutandis^  proves  that  the  Christian  purchaser 


28  THE   TECNOBAPTIST. 

must  needs  have  the  adult  idolater  baptized,  con- 
trary to  our  agreed  doctrine,  which  is  universally 
received  in  the  Christian  world,  that  no  adult  is  a 
proper  subject  of  baptism,  without  faith  (§  53). 

§  68.  Mr.  C.  The  church  was  formerly  a  sepa- 
rate nation;  and  the  servant  brought  within  that 
nation  was  thereby  brought  within  the  church. 
Now,  however,  the  church  is  not  a  nation,  but  is 
distinct  from  secular  kingdoms.  A  servant  intro- 
duced into  the  family  of  a  Christian  is  not  thereby 
brought  within  the  church  ;  and  cannot  be,  except 
by  faith.  It  was  the  duty  of  the  Jewish  master  to 
have  his  servant  circumcised  ;  but  now  the  "  bond- 
servant is  the  Lord's  freeman,"  and  is  to  be  baptized 
upon  the  profession  of  his  own  faith  and  obedience. 

§  69.  Mr.  B.  Your  reasons  are  sufficient  to  ex- 
clude unbelieving  servants  from  baptism  ;  but  again, 
mutatis  mutandis,  they  apply  with  equal  force  against 
infant-baptism.  A  child  born  in  the  house  of  a  be- 
liever is  not  now,  as  formerly,  made  thereby  an 
integral  part  of  the  church.  The  application  of 
your  course  of  reasoning  to  servants  proves  that 
there  is  ^a  flaw  somewhere,  which  we  must  now 
search  out.  I  repeat  my  firm  conviction,  that  "  the 
analogy  furnished  by  the  history  of  the  Old-Testa- 
ment church  "  (§  17)  will  guide  us  to  the  truth,  if 
we  make  no  mistake  in  tracing  that  analogy  ;  and 
the  flaw  in  your  reasoning,  I  am  inclined  to  think, 
will  be  found  to  consist  in  a  departure  from  the  path 


THE   TECNOBAPTIST.  29 

of  that  analogy.  Let  us  examine  the  principle  in- 
volved in  the  argument  by  which  you  attempt  to 
support  infant-baptism. 

§  70.  Mr.  C.  The  argument  consists  of  resem- 
blance of  relations  ;  and  the  principle  involved  may 
be  expressed  in  the  words  of  a  mathematical  propo- 
sition which  has  been  demonstrated  by  Legendre  :  ^ 
"  If  there  be  four  proportionals,  and  four  other  pro- 
portionals having  the  same  antecedents,  the  conse- 
quents will  be  proportional."  If  we  apply  to  the 
consequents  the  third  and  fifth  propositions  of  the 
same  book,  we  will  find  them  still  proportional  when 
taken  first  alternately,  and  then  inversely .^  If  this 
be  too  abstract,  take  this  illustration :  — 

B  is  to  N  as  C  is  to  O,  and 
B  is  to  X  as  C  is  to  S:  therefore 
X  is  to  N  as  S   is  to  O ; 
that  is,  X  stands  in  the  same  relation  to  N  in  which  S 
stands  to  O- 

§  71.     Mr.  A.    As  this  mode  of  exemplification 

1  "  Elements  of  Geometry,"  b.  ii.  prop.  4. 

2  Things  are  proportional  when  the  first  has  to  the  second  the  same 
ratio  or  relation  which  the  third  has  to  the  fourth,  the  fifth  to  the  sixth, 
&c.  The  first  and  third  of  four  proportionals  are  called  the  antecedents ; 
the  second  and  fourth  are  called  the  consequents.  Proportionals  are 
taken  alternately  when  antecedent  is  compared  with  antecedent,  and  con- 
sequent with  consequent;  they  are  taken  inversely  when  the  consequents 
are  made  antecedents,  and  the  antecedents  are  made  consequents.  Thus, 
in  the  proportionals  N  :  0  :  :  X  :  S,  the  antecedents  are  N  and  X;  the 
consequents,  0  and  S.  Taken  alternately,  the  proportionals  stand  thus,  — 
N  :  X  : :  0  :  S.    These,  taken  inversely,  stand  thus,  —  X  :  N  :  :  S  :  0. 

3* 


30  THE   TECNOBAPTIST. 

may  not  be  perfectly  clear,  let  us  apply  this  truth  to 
figures.     Two  examples  will  suffice  :  — 


2:1: 

:  6  :  3,  and 

3 

12: 

:    5 

20,  and 

2:3  : 

:  6  :  9 ;  therefore 

3 

6: 

:    5 

10;  therefore 

3:1: 

:9:3. 

6 

12  : 

:  10 

20. 

Here  the  correctness  of  the  proposition  is  exempli- 
fied and  experimentally  demonstrated. 

§  72.  Mr.  C.  Now,  to  apply  it  to  the  question 
before  us,  let  B  represent  Baptism ;  C,  Circumci- 
sion ;  N,  the  New-Testament  church ;  O,  the  Old- 
Testament  church  ;  S,  the  Subjects  proper  for 
circumcision  in  the  Old-Testament  church  ;  and 
X,  as  in  Algebra,  must  represent  that  unknown 
result  for  which  we  seek ;  that  is,  the  proper  subjects 
of  baptism  in  the  New -Testament  church.  Then  the 
argument  stands  thus :  — 

Baptism  stands  to  the  New-Testament  church  in  the 
same  relation  in  which  Circumcision  stood  to  the  Old- 
Testament  church  (§  51)  ;  — 

Baptism  stands  to  (X)  the  proper  subjects  of  baptism 
in  the  same  relation  in  which  Circumcision  stood  to  the 
proper  Subjects  of  circumcision  (§  51)  ;   therefore  — 

{X)  The  proper  subjects  of  baptism  stand  toward  the 
New-Testament  church  in  the  same  relation  in  which 
the  proper  Subjects  of  circumcision  stood  toward  the  Old- 
Testament  church. 

§  73.  Mr.  A.  The  result  may  be  more  conve- 
niently expressed  thus :   Those  persons  are  proper 


THE   TECNOBAPTIST.  31 

subjects  of  baptism  who  stand  toward  tlie  Christian 
church  in  the  same  relation  in  which  the  proper 
subjects  of  circumcision  stood  toward  the  Israelitish 
church. 

§  74.  Mr.  B.  Here  three  questions  are  pre- 
sented, which  must  be  disposed  of  before  we  ascer- 
tain who  are  proper  subjects  of  Christian  baptism. 

§  75.  Mr.  C.  Yery  true.  We  must  ascertain, 
firstly.  Who  were  proper  subjects  of  circumcision  ; 
secondly,  In  what  relation  they  stood  toward  the 
Israelitish  church ;  thirdly,  What  persons  stand  in 
the  same  relation  toward  the  Christian  church. 
Whoever  those  persons  may  be,  they  are  the  proper 
subjects  of  Christian  baptism.  Firstly,  then.  Who 
were  proper  subjects  of  circumcision  ?  We  need 
notice  only  that  "  the  infant  child  of  Israelitish 
parents,  if  a  male,  was  circumcised  "  (§  25). 

§  76.  Mr.  B.  I  will  not  require  you  to  keep  up 
the  distinction  as  to  sex,  but  admit  that  females  will 
come  in  under  the  same  right  as  males ;  for  in  Christ 
there  is  neither  male  nor  female. 

§  77.  Mr.  A.  The  other  questions  are  just  as 
easily  disposed  of;  for  it  will  not,  it  cannot,  be 
denied,  that  exactly  the  same  relation  exists  between 
Christian  parents  and  their  infant  children  which 
existed  between  Israelitish  parents  and  their  infant 
children. 

§  78.  Mr.  C.  No  proposition  can  be  more  ob- 
viously correct ;   and  the  conclusion  is  inevitable, 


32  THE   TECNOBAPTIST. 

that  the  infant  children  of  Christian  parents  are 
proper  subjects  of  baptism  in  the  Christian  church. 

§  79.  Mr.  B.  How  is  that  ?  Permit  me  to 
review  our  ground.  I  cannot  discover  that  the 
relation  in  which  the  proper  subjects  of  circumci- 
sion stood  toward  their  parents  forms  any  part  of 
the  process  of  reasoning  by  which  we  propose  to 
ascertain  who  are  proper  subjects  of  baptism.  The 
conclusion  at  which  you  just  now  arrived  speaks  of 
their  relation,  not  to  their  parents,  but  to  the  Israel- 
itish  church  (§  73).  The  second  question,  growing 
out  of  that  conclusion,  is.  In  what  relation  they 
stood,  not  toward  their  parents,  but  toward  the 
Israelitish  church  (§  75).  And  the  next  question 
is.  What  persons  stand  in  the  same  relation,  not 
toward  their  parents,  but  toward  the  Christian 
church  (§  75).  You  cannot  substitute  the  parents 
for  the  churches  till  you  show  that  a  child  occupies 
the  same  relation  toward  its  parents  as  toward  the 
church  of  which  the  parents  are  members.  Perhaps 
we  will  find  here  that  flaw  which  evidently  exists  in 
your  chain  of  reasoning,  —  that  by-path  which  leads 
us  astray  from  the  true  road  pointed  out  by  "  the 
analogy  furnished  by  the  history  of  the  Old-Testa- 
ment church"  (§  17). 

§  80.  As  the  relation  of  parents  so  confuses  itself 
with  our  investigation,  let  us,  at  a  proper  time,  con- 
sider two  other  questions,  —  fourthly,  In  what  rela- 
tions Israelitish  children  stood  toward  their  parents  ; 


THE   TECNOBAPTIST.  33 

fifthly,  Toward  what  persons  the  proper  subjects  of 
baptism  stand  m  similar  relations. 

§  81.  Mr,  A,  Very  well :  it  will  only  be  a  longer 
road  to  the  same  result.  The  answer  to  our  first 
question  brings  us  at  least  one  step  farther ;  and  we 
may  now  argue  syllogistically  thus  :  Those  persons 
are  proper  subjects  of  baptism  who  stand  toward  the 
Christian  church  in  the  same  relation  in  which 
the  proper  subjects  of  circumcision  stood  toward  the 
Israelitish  church  (§  73).  The  infant  children  of 
Israelitish  parents  were  proper  subjects  of  circum- 
cision (§§  25,  75)  ;  therefore  — 

§  82.  Those  persons  are  proper  subjects  of  bap- 
tism who  stand  toward  the  Christian  church  in  the 
same  relation  in  which  the  infant  children  of  Israel- 
itish parents  stood  toward  the  Israelitish  church. 

§  83.  Mr.  C.  The  next  question  is,  "  In  what 
relation  did  they"  —  the  infant  children  of  Israelit- 
ish parents — "  stand  toward  the  Israelitish  church  ?  " 
(§  75.)  The  answer  is.  They  "  stood  toward  that 
church  in  the  relation  of  membership  by  the  fact  of 
birth  "  (§  23).  In  like  manner,  the  children  of  pro- 
fessing Christians  are  church-members  in  virtue  of 
their  birth. 

§  84.  Mr.  B.  Well,  well :  you  seem  to  be  lead- 
ing me  to  your  opinion  rapidly  enough,  without 
hurrying  me  through  any  near  cuts.  Let  me  reach 
it,  if  at  all,  by  the  regular  path  marked  out.  I  will 
"  follow  the  testimony,  and  fair  deductions  there- 


34  THE   TECNOBAPTIST. 

from,  whithersoever  they  may  lead"  (§  16).  So 
are  you  bound  to  follow,  and  not  jump  at  conclu- 
sions in  advance. 

§  85.  Mr.  C.  Then,  from  the  conclusion  already 
reached,  we  may  reason  thus :  Those  persons  are 
proper  subjects  of  baptism  who  stand  toward  the 
Christian  church  in  the  same  relation  in  which 
the  infant  children  of  Israelitish  parents  stood 
toward  the  Israelitish  church  (§  82).  The  infant 
children  of  Israelitish  parents  stood  toward  the 
Israelitish  church  in  the  relation  of  membership 
by  the  fact  of  birth  (§  83)  ;  therefore  — 

§  86.  Those  persons  are  proper  subjects  of  bap- 
tism who  stand  toward  the  Christian  church  in  the 
relation  of  membership  by  the  fact  of  birth. 

§  87.  Now,  the  children  of  professing  Christians 
are  not  to  be  reckoned  as  part  of  the  world,  but  of 
the  church,  —  a  holy,  not  a  common  and  unclean 
seed.  They  are  born  members  of  the  church.  So 
this  certainly  closes  the  argument. 

§  88.  Mr.  B.  It  does,  indeed,  if  your  assertion 
be  true  ;  but  whether  or  not  the  children  of  profess- 
ing Christians  be  born  members  of  the  church  is 
involved  in  our  third  question,  which  now  naturally 
presents  itself  for  consideration  :  "  What  persons 
stand  in  the  same  relation  toward  the  Christian 
church?"  (§  75) — that  is.  What  persons  stand 
toward  the  Christian  church  in  the  relation  of 
membership  by  the  fact  of  birth  ?     You  reply,  The 


THE   TECNOBAPTIST.  35 

children  of  professing  Christians.     But  this  conflicts 
with   several   of   the   propositions   which  we   have 
agreed  upon  as  unquestionably  true  ;  namely,  that, 
though  the  church  is  still  the  same  as  under  the  old 
dispensation,  it  has  undergone  some  changes ;  and 
that  "  it  no  longer  consists  of  the  seed  of  Abraham 
according  to  the  flesh,  but  of  his  spiritual  seed " 
(§  36)  ;  —  that,  under  the  old  dispensation,  Israel- 
itish  children  became  members  by  the  fact  of  carnal 
birth ;  but  that,  since  the  church  has  been  given  to 
the  spiritual  seed,  no  one  can  enter  tlie  kingdom  of 
God,  or  church,  without  another  birth,  which  is  a 
spiritual  birth   (§§  36,  41).      Remember  also  the 
remarks  which  you  both  recently  made  on  this  point. 
Mr.  C.  said  that  Jesus  demonstrated  to  Nicodemus, 
"  that  they  who  are  born  of  the  flesh,  as  the  Jews 
were  born  of  Abraham,  cannot  enter  into  the  king- 
dom of  God  without   another  birth ;  "   that  they 
"  must  have  another  birth  before  they  could  even 
see  it"  (§  38);  that  they  "must  be  born  again, 
must  become  new  creatures,  or  they  will  not,  they 
cannot,  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God  "  (§  44)  ; 
and  much  more  to  the  same  effect.     Mr.  A.  was  no 
less  strong.    He  said,  among  other  things,  that  "  the 
entrance  into  the  Jewish  church  was  by  natural 
birth  ;  while  the  entrance  into  the  Christian  church, 
properly  so  called,  is  by  faith  and  a  spiritual  birth ;" 
—  that,  in  our  Lord's  discourse  with  Nicodemus,  "  he 
declares  the  necessity  of  a  new  birth,  in  contra- 


36  THE   TECNOBAPTIST. 

distinction  to  our  natural  birth,  in  order  to  our 
entrance  into  the  kingdom  of  God  ;  and  lays  it 
down,  that  the  Spirit  of  God  is  the  sole  author  of 
this  change"  (§  39).  Does  this  mean  something, 
or  nothing  ?  If  any  thing,  it  points  out  the  new,  the 
spiritual  birth  as  the  only  birth  by  which  any  one 
can  enter  into  the  kingdom  or  church  of  God  (§  31) ; 
and,  of  course,  it  designates  those  who  are  thus  born 
anew  as  the  only  persons  who  are  born  into  the 
church,  and  occupy  toward  it  the  relation  of  "  mem- 
bership by  the  fact  of  birth."  No  one  can  be  a 
member  until  ^.dmitted  into  the  body  of  which  he 
becomes  a  member.  If  infants  become  members  by 
their  birth,  then  being  born  of  the  flesh  does  admit 
them  into  the  kingdom  of  God,  in  contradiction  of 
our  agreed  doctrine  (§  41), — in  contradiction  of  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  who  says  expressly,  "  Except  a 
man  be  born  again,  he  cannot  enter  into  the  king- 
dom of  God."^  Therefore  no  carnal  infant  is  a 
member.  Then  who  is  ?  In  one  of  our  agreed 
points,  as  also  in  your  remarks  of  which  I  have  just 
quoted  a  part,  we  find  the  reply,  that  those  only 
are  the  spiritual  seed  of  Abraham  who  have  been 
born  again,  —  born  of  the  Spirit ;  that,  without  such 
spiritual  birth,  no  one  can  enter  the  church  (§  41). 
Then  the  answer  ta  our  third  question  (§  75)  is  as 
follows :  — 

§  89.     Those  persons,  and  none  other,  who  have 

1  John  iii.  3. 


THE  TECNOBAPTIST.  37 

been  regenerated  and  born  anew,  stand  toward  the 
Christian  church  in  the  relation  of  membership  by 
the  fact  of  birth. 

§  90.  These  are  the  only  persons  who  occupy,  in 
the  Christian  church,  a  position  analogous  to  that  of 
infants  born  into  the  Israelitish  church :  in  other 
words,  they  are  the  "  new-born  babes  "  of  the  gospel, 
as  carnal  infants  were  the  "  little  ones  "  of  the  law. 
The  analogy  we  have  traced  leads  me  irresistibly  to 
the  conclusion  that  these  spiritual  "new-born  babes" 
have  the  same  right  to  baptism  that  the  carnal 
"  little  ones  "  had  to  circumcision.  You  have  thus 
convinced  me  that  infants  are  proper  subjects  of 
baptism  ;  and  I  now  declare  myself  a  Pedobaptist  ;^ 
or,  if  that  title  have  been  too  exclusively  appro- 
priated by  the  advocates  of  the  baptism  of  carnal 
infants,  I  must  invent  a  new  name,  and  call  myself 
a  Tecnobaptist,^  —  one  who  advocates  the  baptism 
of  "•  new-born  babes  in  Christ." 

§  91.  Mr.  C.  I  understand  you  as  urging  that 
that  carnal  infancy  which  was  ingrafted  into  the 
fellowship  of  the  church  by  circumcision  prefigured 
those  spiritual  infants  of  the  New  Testament,  who, 
by  the  word  of  God,  are  regenerated  to  an  immortal 
life.  In  this  language  we  discover,  indeed,  a  small 
spark  of  truth.  We  confess,  indeed,  that  the  natural 
seed  of  Abraham  did,  for  a  time,  hold  the  place  of 

1  From  paidon  bapiisma,  the  baptism  of  children. 

2  From  tecnon  hapti&ma,  the  baptism  of  children. 

4 


38  THE   TECNOBAPTIST. 

those  spiritual  children  which  are  incorporated  with 
him  by  faith  ;  for  we  are  called  his  children,  not- 
withstanding there  is  no  relationship  between  him 
and  us.  But  if  you  understand,  as  you  certainly 
do,  that  no  spiritual  blessing  was  promised  by  God 
to  the  carnal  seed  of  Abraham,  you  are  greatly 
deceived. 

§  92.  Mr.  B.  You  mistake  me.  What  I  asserted 
does  not  involve,  or  even  remotely  touch  upon,  the 
opinion  which  you  attribute  to  me  ;  and  I  am  will- 
ing to  concede  to  you  all  that  you  can  demand 
on  that  point,  —  that  the  carnal  seed  of  Abraham, 
before  Christ,  were  saved  by  faith  in  Christ  as  being 
to  come,  just  as  we  are  saved  by  faith  in  Christ  as 
having  come  already,  —  their  faith  being  prospec- 
tive, ours  retrospective  ;  that  every  spiritual  and 
eternal  blessing  was  promised  to  them  which  is 
promised  to  the  spiritual  seed,  and  a  thousand-fold 
more,  if  you  will.  All  this  I  wilHngly  concede  in 
our  present  inquiry  ;  but  I  insist  that  it  is  wholly 
irrelevant.  All  that  I  assert  is,  what  you  have 
already  laid  down  as  unquestionably  true  (§§  21, 
23,  36,  41),  that,  under  the  old  dispensation,  car- 
nal descent  from  Abraham  made  one  a  member  of 
the  church,  and  carnal  birth  brought  him  into  the 
church ;  but  that  now  a  carnal  descent  from  Abra- 
ham, or  from  any  other  person,  cannot  bring  a  child 
into  the  church;  —  that  "  those  who  are  born  of  the 
flesh,  whoever  may  be  their  progenitors,  are  not 


THE   TECNOBAPTIST.  39 

the  spiritual  seed  of  Abraham,  and  cannot  enter 
into  the  kingdom  of  God,  or  church,  without  a 
regeneration  and  another  birth,  which  is  a  spiritual 
birth,  or  being  "  born  of  the  Spirit "  (§  41).  From 
this  it  follows,  as  a  necessary  consequence,  that 
"  those  persons,  and  none  other,  who  have  been 
regenerated  and  born  anew,  stand  toward  the  Chris- 
tian church  in  the  relation  of  membership  by  the 
fact  of  birth"  (§  89).  This  does  not  conflict  with 
the  doctrine,  that  in  days  of  yore,  when  persons 
occupied  that  relation  by  reason  of  mere  carnal 
birth,  they  had  a  promise  of  the  same  blessings 
which  are  now  offered  to  persons  who  attain  to  that 
relation  by  a  spiritual  birth.  This  may  be  true  or 
false  ;  but  it  is  aside  from  our  present  inquiry. 

§  93.  We  may  not  find  a  more  suitable  time  to 
complete  the  parallel  between  the  carnal  seed  of  the 
Levitical  and  the  spiritual  seed  of  the  evangelical 
dispensation,  by  disposing  of  our  fourth  and  fifth 
questions.  The  fourth  is,  "  In  what  relations  did 
Israeli tish  children  stand  toward  their  parents  ?  " 
(§  80.)  Not  in  what  relation^  but  in  what  rela- 
tions? For  you  will  perceive  that  they  occupied 
two  relations,  —  first,  as  having  been  brought  into 
the  world  by  those  parents,  which  we  may  call  their 
carnal  relation  to  their  parents  :  secondly,  as  having 
been  brought  by  those  parents  into  the  house  of 
Israel,  the  kingdom  or  church  of  God  ;  and  this  we 
may  call  their  ecclesiastical  relation  to  their  parents. 


40  THE  TECNOBAPTIST. 

They  stood  toward  their  parents,  in  the  carnal  rela- 
tion, as  members  of  the  human  family ;  in  the 
ecclesiastical  relation,  as  members  of  the  Israeli tish 
family,  or  church  of  God.  The  next  question  is 
(§  80),  "  Toward  what  persons  do  the  proper  sub- 
jects of  baptism  stand  in  similar  relations  ?  "  And, 
firstly,  toward  what  persons  do  they  stand  in  the 
carnal  relation  of  child  to  parent  ? 

§  94.  Mr.  C.  Of  course,  toward  the  father  and 
mother  by  whom  they  came  into  the  world,  —  by 
whom  they  became  human  beings,  —  by  whom  they 
became  flesh. 

§  95.  Mr.  B.  Yery  true.  Then,  secondly,  toward 
what  persons  do  the  proper  subjects  of  baptism  stand 
in  the  ecclesiastic.al  relation  of  child  to  parent  ? 

§  96.  Mr.  A.  Yery  obviously,  toward  those  per- 
sons by  whom  they  were  brought  into  the  church, 
the  spiritual  house  of  Israel,  the  kingdom  of  God. 
These  may  be  called  their  spiritual,  and  the  former 
their  carnal  or  natural  parents.  And  here  I  per- 
ceive the  original  of  the  institution  of  sponsors. 
The  terms  "godfather"  and  "  godmother"  are  given 
because  they  promise  before  God  that  they  will  be 
as  spiritual  parents  to  the  infant,  being  such  at  his 
initiation  into  the  church.  They  are  parents  to  the 
children  in  what  concerns  their  duty  to  God,  their 
best  interest,  their  spiritual  life.  As  he  that  showed 
mercy  on  the  man  who  fell  among  thieves,  though 
a  stranger,  was  truly  his  neighbor  ;  so  in  the  eye  of 


THE   TECNOBAPTIST.  41 

faith,  and  in  wliat  concerns  religion,  tliey  are  fathers 
and  mothers,  though  of  no  worldly  kindred,  who 
bring  infants  to  Christ,  bring  them  np  in  his  nur- 
ture, and  are  instrumental  in  making  them  the  sons 
of  God,  and  joint-heirs  with  their  Saviour  of  an 
everlasting  inheritance. 

§  97.  Mr.  B.  I  agree  with  you  as  to  the  origin 
of  the  institution  of  sponsors,  but  will  presently 
attempt  to  show  that  it  is  a  most  unworthy  scion  of 
such  a  noble  stock.  The  ecclesiastical  or  spiritual 
parent,  as  you  say,  is  the  person  by  whom  the  spirit- 
ual child  of  Abraham  is  brought  into  the  spiritual 
house  of  Israel ;  in  other  words,  by  whose  instru- 
mentality he  becomes  one  of  the  spiritual  seed  of 
Abraham.  In  the  Israelitish  church,  as  we  have 
seen,  the  same  individuals  who  brought  the  child 
into  the  world  brought  him  also  into  the  church, 
and  hence  were  both  his  natural  and  ecclesiastical 
parents.  And,  in  the  Christian  church,  a  person 
may  unite  the  characters  of  natural  and  ecclesiasti- 
cal parent ;  and  it  is  to  be  regretted  that  it  is  not 
more  frequently  the  case.  The  reason  is,  that  two 
separate  births  are  necessary,  —  the  first  carnal,  to 
bring  the  person  into  the  world ;  the  second  spirit- 
ual, to  bring  him  into  the  kingdom  of  God,  —  to 
make  him  one  of  the  seed  of  Abraham,  one  of  the 
children  of  God  ;  and  parents  are  too  frequently 
neglectful  of  that  religious  training  and  instruction 
by  which  the  latter  result  may  be  effected. 

4* 


42  THE   TECNOBAPTIST. 

§  98.  Mr.  C.  The  distinction  is  very  correct. 
It  is  a  necessary  consequence  of  the  fact,  that,  in 
the  covenant  with  Abraham,  God  promised  him  two 
kinds  of  seed,  —  the  one  by  natural  descent,  and 
the  other  by  faith  ;  and  we  find  it  constantly  recog- 
nized in  the  epistles  of  the  apostles.  Thus,  by  reck- 
oning Caius  in  the  number  of  his  children  (^ema 
tecnci),  St.  John  means  to  tell  us  that  Caius  was 
converted  by  him.^  For  the  same  reason,  I  suppose, 
St.  Peter  calls  Mark  his  son ;  ^  so  that  he  was  his 
son  according  to  the  spirit,  and  not  according  to  the 
flesh.  And  St.  Paul  calls  Timothy  his  son,  because 
he  had  converted  him,  and  thereby  conveyed  to  him 
a  new  nature.^  He  applies  the  same  phraseology  to 
Titus  ;  and  to  Onesimus,  whom  he  had  begotten  in 
his  bonds. ^  Also,  in  his  Epistle  to  the  Galatians,^ 
"  my  little  children  "  (tecnia  moii)  is  an  expression 
of  the  tenderest  affection  ;  but,  as  coming  from  St. 
Paul,  it  likewise  insinuates  that  he  had  been  instru- 
mental in  their  conversion.  He  tells  the  Christians 
at  Corinth,  that,  though  they  had  ten  thousand  in- 
structors in  the  Christian  doctrine,  yet  they  had  not 
many  fathers ;  for  he  was  their  only  spiritual  father, 
having  begotten  them  through  the  gospel.^  In  those 
days,  the  unbelieving  Jews  (and  some  even  among 
the  believing  Jews)  thought  themselves  the  children 

1  3  John  4.  2  1  Pet.  v.  13. 

3  1  Cor.  iv.  11.   1  Tim.  i.  2.   2  Tim.  i.  2. 

4  Tit.  i.  4.  Philem.  10.  6  Gal.  iv.  19. 
6  1  Cor.  iv.  15 ;  and  see  2  Cor.  xii.  14. 


THE   TECNOBAPTIST.  43 

of  God,  because  tliej  were  descended  from  Abraham 
by  Isaac,  and  possessed  the  knowledge  of  the  true 
God  ;  but  the  Apostle  John  assured  both,  that,  God 
having  attested  Jesus  to  be  the  Christ,  the  only 
thing  under  the  gospel  dispensation  which  made 
men  his  children,  was  their  believing  on  Jesus  as 
the  Christ,  or  Son  of  God,  and  their  loving  the 
children  of  God.^ 

§  99.  Mr.  B.  You  have  well  remarked,  that  God 
promised  Abraham  two  kinds  of  seed,  —  the  one  by 
natural  descent,  and  the  other  by  faith.  The  former 
constituted  the  church  under  the  old  dispensation : 
the  latter  constitute  it  under  the  new.  It  is  impos- 
sible for  one  to  be  of  the  seed  which  is  by  natural 
descent,  if  he  be  not  really  of  the  lineage  of  Abra- 
ham ;  and  it  is  equally  impossible  for  one  to  be  of 
the  seed  which  is  by  faith,  if  he  be  not  actually  a  be- 
liever. This,  indeed,  you  distinctly  assert  when  you 
say,  that,  "  under  the  gospel  dispensation,  the  only 
thing  which  makes  men  God's  children  is  their  be- 
lieving on  Jesus  as  the  Son  of  God,  and  their  loving 
the  children  of  God."  Of  these  things  no  carnal 
infant  is  capable.     But  I  anticipate. 

§  100.  The  apostles,  or  any  other  persons  who 
had  effected  the  conversion  of  Christians,  stood 
toward  those  Christians  "  in  the  faith,"  or  "  in 
Christ"  (that  is  to  say,  in  the  church),  in  the  same 
relation  in  which  the  Israelites  stood  in  the  church 

1  1  John  V.  2. 


44  THE   TECNOBAPTIST. 

toward  their  infant  children.  This  was  a  familiar 
idea  with  the  primitive  Christians,  as  we  see  from 
the  writings  of  the  apostles ;  and  I  agree  with  Mr.  A., 
that  this  is  the  origin  of  god-parents  in  the  churches 
of  Rome  and  England ;  a  usage  which  they  derive, 
not  from  Christ,  but  from  Pope  Hyginus,  whose 
pontificate  commenced  about  A.D.  138.  They  have 
here  preserved  something  of  consistency  even  in 
their  errors ;  for  they  bear  in  mind  that  birth  im- 
plies, not  only  a  person  born,  but  parents  also.  The 
apostles  and  evangelists  were  styled  fathers  of  those 
whom  they  had  "  begotten  through  the  gospel," 
—  whom  they  had  been  instrumental  in  converting 
to  Christ ;  and,  in  vain  and  feeble  imitation  of  this 
holy  relation,  we  find  persons  assuming  the  name  of 
spiritual  fathers  and  mothers  of  infants,  not  because 
they  have  begotten  them  through  the  gospel,  or 
travailed  in  birth  till  Christ  were  formed  in  them  ^ 
(for  the  infants  are  unconverted,  nay,  incapable  of 
conversion),  but  because  they  were  present  at  the 
christening,  and  went  through  a  form  of  words  ! 
When  the  infants  attain  an  age  at  which  they  are 
capable  of  being  "  begotten  through  the  gospel," 
their  putative  fathers  and  mothers  in  Christ  may  be 
in  some  far-distant  place,  where  they  cannot  conduce 
to  the  religious  education  of  the  children,  or  they 
may  be  in  their  graves  ;  and,  spite  of  the  appoint- 
ment of  godfathers  and  godmothers,  the  true  spirit- 

1  1  Cor.  iv.  15.    Gal.  iv.  19. 


THE  TECNOBAPTIST.  45 

ual  parents  of  a  child  are  those  who  in  after-life 
become  instrumental  in  effecting  his  conversion  to 
Christ.  But  let  us  return  from  this  digression,  and 
form  another  argument  from  the  conclusions  already 
reached. 

§  101.  Mr.  A,  This  may  be  done  syllogistically, 
thus  :  Those  persons  are  proper  subjects  of  baptism 
who  stand  toward  the  Christian  church  in  the  rela- 
tion of  membership  by  the  fact  of  birth  (§  86). 
Those  persons  who  have  been  regenerated,  and  born 
anew,  stand  toward  the  Christian  church  in  that 
relation  (§  89).     Therefore, — 

§  102.  Those  persons  who  have  been  regenerated, 
and  born  anew,  are  proper  subjects  of  baptism. 

§  103.  Mr.  B.  You  very  properly  omitted  the 
words  "  and  none  other  "  from  the  minor  and  con- 
clusion of  the  syllogism,  since  they  are  not  in  the 
major  proposition. 

§  104.  Mr.  C.  And  the  syllogism,  after  all, 
proves  nothing  but  what  we  knew  before  we  com- 
menced the  investigation,  —  that  those  who  are  born 
again  through  faith  in  the  gospel  are  entitled  to 
baptism.  Here  we  are  all  agreed.  We  hold  to  be- 
lievers' baptism  as  much  as  you,  and  so  expressly 
stated  at  the  outset  (§  53)  ;  but  the  question  in 
dispute  is  in  regard  to  infants.  Is  infant-baptism 
wrong  because  believers'  baptism  is  right  ?  No 
more,  I  insist,  than  believers'  baptism  must  be 
wrong  if  infant-baptism  be  right. 


46  THE   TECNOBAPTIST. 

§  105.  Mr.  B.  All  that  I  admit.  I  am  not 
attempting  to  strain  our  last  conclusion  beyond  its 
true  import.  It  is  nothing  more  than  we  all  knew 
before  ;  yet  it  has  an  important  bearing  in  our  pre- 
sent inquiry.  We  started  out  with  the  design  of 
establishing,  by  the  analogy  derived  from  the  rite 
of  circumcision,  that  infants  are  proper  subjects  of 
baptism  (§§  12-14)  ;  yet  a  fair  course  of  syllogistic 
reasoning  from  that  point  has  not,  thus  far,  been 
sufficient  to  evolve  more  than  the  proposition,  that 
regenerate  persons  are  proper  subjects  of  baptism. 
Notwithstanding  the  truth  of  this  proposition,  it  may 
also  be  true  that  infants  are  proper  subjects.  All 
that  I  insist  on  at  present  is  that  the  argument  has 
entirely  failed  to  establish  the  proposition,  that  in- 
fants are  proper  subjects  of  baptism  ;  which  propo- 
sition it  was  designed  to  establish. 

§  106.  Mr.  A.  You  say  rightly,  that  the  conclu- 
sion we  have  reached,  by  no  means  settles  that 
infants  are  not  proper  subjects  of  baptism  :  for  the 
question  is  still  open  on  the  analogies  to  be  drawn 
from  the  other  subjects  of  circumcision  ;  and,  if  nei- 
ther of  these  will  avail  us,  then  the  question  remains, 
whether  infants  may  not  be  regenerate  persons. 

§  107.  Mr.  C.  Well,  then,  let  us  test  this  argu- 
ment as  our  first  argument  was  tested  (§§  65-67), 
and  see  if  we  cannot  reduce  it  to  the  same  absurdity. 
"  A  servant  whom  an  Israelite  bought  of  a  stranger 
must  needs  be  circumcised"  (§  28).     Does  not  the 


THE   TECNOBAPTIST.  47 

analogy  which  we  are  to  follow  require  that  a  ser- 
vant bought  by  a  Christian  shall  be  in  like  manner 
baptized  ?  Does  not  our  train  of  argument  lead  to 
this  ? 

§  108.     3Ir.  B.  Very  clearly  so,  if,  firstly,  there 
be  persons  standing  in  the  same  relation,  not  to  their 
masters,  but  to  the  Christian  church,  in  which  those 
servants  stood,  not  toward  their  masters,  but  toward 
the  Israelitish  church ;  and  if,  secondly,  there  be  no 
prohibition,  either  direct  or  inferential.     But,  in  the 
first  place,  there  are  no  persons  occupying  a  similar 
relation  toward  the  Christian  church.     Here  I  might 
quote  the  remarks  of  Mr.  C,  to  the  effect,  that, 
when  the  church  of  God  was  a  distinct  state  of  the 
earth,  bond-servants,  as  such,  constituted  a  portion 
of  the  subjects  of  that  state,  —  a  distinct  class,  yet 
not  the  less  subjects  ;  but  that  now  "  the  bond-ser- 
vant is  the  Lord's  freeman,"  and  is  to  be  baptized 
upon  the  profession  of  his  own  faith  and  obedience 
(§  53).      The  gospel  does  not  interfere  with  the 
relations  of  master  and  servant  as  they  may  chance 
to  exist  in  civil  society  ;  for  Paul  says,  "  Art  thou 
called,  being  a  servant  ?  care  not  for  it."     He  sent 
back  Onesimus,  a  fugitive  slave,  to  his  master  Phi- 
lemon.     He   and   other   apostles   enjoin    diligence 
and  obedience  upon  servants  in  several  epistles,  and 
treat  as  often  of  the  duties  of  masters,  without  once 
urging  them  to  liberate  their  servants,  or  intimating 
that  it  was  sinful  to  keep  them  in  bondage  ;  yet,  in 


48  THE   TECNOBAPTIST. 

the  church  itself,  the  relation  of  master  and  servant 
is  abrogated.  In  the  world,  the  servant  is  servant 
still ;  but  in  the  church,  if  he  be  regenerate,  he  is 
"above  a  servant,  —  a  brother  beloved:"^  for  in 
Christ  "  there  is  neither  bond  nor  free."  ^  Then  our 
argument,  if  applied  to  servants,  must  fail,  because 
we  can  find  nothing  in  the  Christian  church  analo- 
gous to  their  position  in  the  Israelitish  church. 

§  109.  In  the  second  place,  there  is  an  express 
prohibition  of  their  entering  the  church  as  servants, 
or  by  reason  of  their  being  bought  with  money. 
You  hold  that  baptism  is  an  ordinance  of  the  church, 
not  existing  out  of  the  church.  Then  it  can  be  pro- 
perly applied  only  to  those  over  whom  the  church 
has  acquired  jurisdiction,  —  who  have  come  within 
the  church  itself  by  some  means.  That  a  servant 
cannot  enter  into  the  church  merely  by  being  bought 
into  a  Christian  family  is  declared  by  one  of  your 
preliminary  truths :  "  Those  who  are  born  of  the  flesh 
cannot  enter  into  the  church,  without  a  regeneration 
and  another  birth,  which  is  being  born  of  the  Spirit" 
(§  41).  It  is  declared  by  the  Lord  from  heaven, 
when  he  says,  "  Except  a  man  be  born  again,  he 
cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God."^  Not 
being  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  church  without 
regeneration,  the  servant  cannot  be  baptized;  but 
if  you  hold  that  baptism  is  an  initiatory  rite,  by 
means  of  which  the  servant  is  brought  into   the 

1  Philem.  16.  2  Qal.  iii.  28.  3  John  iii.  3,  5. 


THE  TECNOBAPTIST.  49 

church,  then  he  enters  without  being  "  born  of 
water  and  the  Spirit,"  by  being  born  of  water  alone. 
If  he  become  regenerate,  he  is  within  the  body  and 
jurisdiction  of  the  church,  because  he  is  bought, 
not  with  the  master's  money,  but  with  the  precious 
blood  of  Jesus  Christ.  He  comes  to  baptism  in 
right,  not  of  pecuniary  purchase,  but  of  spiritual 
birth;  not  as  a  servant,  but  "above  a  servant, — 
even  a  brother  beloved."  Just  so  the  infant  of  a 
Christian  cannot  come  into  the  church  by  his  carnal 
birth,  but  must  be  born  again.  I  will  here  remark, 
that,  even  if  you  should  reduce  our  argument  to  an 
absurdity,  you  will  not  thereby  advance  the  cause 
of  infant-baptism,  but  only  show  that  the  process  by 
which  we  have  reached  the  conclusion,  that  regene- 
rate persons  are  proper  subjects  of  baptism,  is  falla- 
cious. But  the  effort  at  the  reductio  ad  absurdum 
is  not  successful. 

§  110.  Mr.  C.  The  other  analogy  is  not  so  easily 
disposed  of.  The  distinction  of  youth  and  age  i& 
not  abolished  in  the  church.  While  the  apostle  says- 
that  in  Christ  there  is  neither  Jew  nor  Greek,  male* 
nor  female,  bond  nor  free,  he  does  not  say  there  is 
neither  old  nor  young.  Now,  not  only  the  infant 
Israelites  were  circumcised,  but  also  any  sojourner 
wishing  to  keep  the  passover  was  required  to  be- 
circumcised,  with  all  his  males  (§  26).  Will  not 
the  course  of  argument  we  have  followed  prove, 
that,  when  any  stranger  to  the  church  of  Christ 

5 


50  THE   TECNOBAPTIST. 

wishes  to  partake  of  the  Lord's  supper,  he  must  be 
baptized,  with  all  his  males,  —  or,  rather,  with  all 
his  children,  since  in  Christ  "  there  is  neither  male 
nor  female  "  ? 

§  111.  Mr.  B.  I  reply,  as  in  the  other  case,  that 
our  argument  leads  inevitably  to  that  conclusion, 
if,  firstly,  there  be  persons  standing  in  the  same 
relation,  not  to  their  parents,  but  to  the  Christian 
church,  which  those  children  occupied,  not  toward 
their  parents,  but  toward  the  Israelitish  church  ; 
and  if,  secondly,  there  be  no  prohibition,  either 
express  or  inferential.  Let  us  first  assume  that 
such  relation  does  exist,  and  that  there  is  no  prohi- 
bition. Then  the  children  of  converts,  born  previous 
to  the  conversion  of  the  parents,  are  entitled  to  bap- 
tism ;  but  this  is  no  warrant  for  the  baptism  of  any 
children  whose  parents  are  believers  at  the  time  of 
their  birth.  This  argument  for  baptizing  the  chil- 
dren of  Christian  proselytes,  to  the  exclusion  of  the 
children  of  believers,  might  be  plausibly  strength- 
ened by  the  exam^Dles  of  household-baptisms  which 
are  usually  adduced  in  support  of  infant-baptism. 
Let  it  be  admitted  that  infants  were  baptized  with 
Lydia,  with  the  jailer,  and  with  Stephanas  ;  yet  it 
might  be  insisted,  that,  as  all  these  were  new  con- 
verts, these  examples  confirm  the  right  of  the  chil- 
dren of  new  converts  to  be  baptized  ;  while  the 
absence  of  a  single  recorded  instance  in  which  in- 
fants, born  subsequently  to  the  conversion  and  bap- 


THE  TECNOBAPTIST.  51 

tism  of  the  parents,  were  baptized,  is  prima,  facie 
evidence  that  such  infants  were  not  entitled  to  bap- 
tism ;  and  this  prima  facie  evidence  is  corroborated 
and  confirmed  by  the  positive  evidence  which  we 
have  examined,  that  the  infants  of  believers  do  not 
occupy  a  position  analogous  to  that  of  the  infant 
Israelites.  Some  actually  hold  this  doctrine,  or 
something  near  akin  to  it.  Certain  it  is,  that  the 
children  born  to  believing  parents  bear  no  analogy 
to  servants,  none  to  the  children  of  proselytes,  nor  to 
any  persons  in  the  Old-Testament  church,  unless  it 
be  the  infants  of  the  Israelites ;  and  here,  as  we  have 
seen,  the  analogy  is  not  real  (§§  88-96).  So  the  case 
of  the  infants  of  proselytes  proves  nothing  in  favor  of 
the  baptism  of  any  infants,  unless  it  be  the  infants 
of  Christian  proselytes. 

§  112.  Secondly,  then,  let  us  see  whether  there 
be  indeed  in  the  Christian  church  any  persons  oc- 
cupying the  same  relation  to  that  church  in  which 
the  children  of  proselytes  stood  toward  the  Israel- 
itish  church.  Those  children  entered  the  church, 
not  by  the  fact  of  birth,  but  by  the  fact  of  the  con- 
version of  their  carnal  parents  to  the  Hebrew  faith. 
Then  are  there  in  the  Christian  church  any  persons 
who  have  entered  it,  not  by  the  fact  of  spiritual 
birth,  but  by  the  fact  of  the  conversion  of  their 
carnal  or  of  their  spiritual  parents  ?  There  are  not, 
and  cannot  be,  such  persons  ;  because, — 

§  113.      Thirdly,  they  are   expressly  prohibited 


52  THE   TECNOBAPTIST. 

from  entering  the  church  by  any  means  other  than 
spiritual  birth  (§  41).  A  convert  cannot  bring  his 
children  into  the  church  because  he  is  born  again ; 
for  the  regeneration  must  be  their  own.  They 
cannot  be  initiated  into  the  church,  without  regene- 
ration and  new  birth  ;  for  that  would  be  to  annul 
the  express  prohibition  pronounced  by  the  Saviour, 
when  he  said,  so  positively  and  solemnly,  "  Verily, 
verily,  I  say  unto  you,  Except  a  man  be  born  again, 
he  cannot  see  the  kingdom  of  God  ; "  "  Except  a  man 
be  born  of  water  and  the  Spirit,  he  cannot  enter  into 
the  kingdom  of  God."  ^  Here  he  expressly  prohibits 
any  one  to  enter  his  kingdom,  expressly  declares  it 
impossible  for  any  one  to  enter  therein,  not  only  as 
a  servant,  or  as  a  child  of  a  proselyte,  or  as  a  child 
of  professing  Christians,  but  in  any  other  right,  or 
by  any  other  method,  than  that  of  being  born  anew. 
All  this  is  fully  recognized  and  affirmed  in  the 
remarks  which  you  both  made  concerning  the  dis- 
course with  Nicodemus,  and  which  led  to  the  adop- 
tion of  some  of  our  points  of  agreement  (§§  38,  39, 
43,  44).  One  of  those  agreed  points  declares  the 
same  thing :  "  Those  who  are  born  of  the  flesh,  who- 
ever may  be  their  progenitors,  cannot  enter  into  the 
kingdom  of  God,  or  church,  without  another  birth, 
which  is  a  spiritual  birth  "  (§  41).  As  this  spirit- 
ual birth  is  the  only  means  of  entering  the  church, 
and  becoming  subject  to  its  jurisdiction,  it  is  the 

1  John  iii.  3,  5. 


THE   TECNOBAPTIST.      .  53 

only  means  by  which  one  can  become  entitled  to 
receive  any  ordinance  within  the  church.  Hence 
none  are  entitled  to  baptism  but  those  who  have 
been  regenerated  and  born  anew,  and  thus  stand 
toward  the  Christian  church  in  the  relation  of  mem- 
bership by  the  fact  of  birth.  Then  we  are  author- 
ized to  insert  the  words  "  and  none  other  "  in  the 
major  proposition  of  our  last  argument  (§§  101, 
102),  which  will  stand  thus :  — 

§  114.  Those  persons,  and  none  other,  are  proper 
subjects  of  baptism,  who  stand  toward  the  Chris- 
tian church  in  the  relation  of  membership  by  the 
fact  of  birth.  This  addition  must  be  also  carried 
into  the  conclusion  of  that  argument. 

§  115.  Mr.  A.  The  syllogism  will  stand  thus : 
Those  persons,  and  none  other,  are  proper  subjects 
of  baptism,  who  stand  toward  the  Christian  church 
in  the  relation  of  membership  by  the  fact  of  birth 
(§  114).  Those  persons,  and  none  other,  who  have 
been  regenerated  and  born  again,  stand  toward  the 
Christian  church  in  the  relation  of  membership  by 
the  fact  of  birth  (§  89)  ;  therefore,  — 

§  116.  Those  persons,  and  none  other,  who  have 
been  regenerated  and  born  again,  are  proper  subjects 
of  baptism. 

§  117.  Thus  our  inquiry  is  reduced  to  the  single 
point  of  baptismal  regeneration.  If  you  be  right 
on  that  point,  the  argument  is  complete,  and  anti- 
pedobaptism  may  march  under  it  as  a  triumphal 

5* 


64  THE   TECNOBAPTIST. 

arch  ;  but,  if  I  be  right,  the  strong  arch  of  argument 
must  fall  to  the  ground  for  want  of  its  key-stone. 

§  118.  Mr.  B.  Before  considering  the  subject 
of  baptismal  regeneration,  let  us  briefly  review  the 
analogy  which  we  have  followed,  and  see  how  far 
the  position  we  have  reached  by  syllogisms  is  sup- 
ported by  the  teachings  of  Christ  and  his  apostles. 
Firstly,  the  church  now  consists  of  the  spiritual 
descendants  of  Abraham,  and  not,  as  formerly,  of 
his  carnal  descendants.  John  the  Baptist  hinted  at 
this  change,  when  he  said  to  the  Pharisees  and  Sad- 
ducees,  "Think  not  to  say  within  yourselves.  We 
have  Abraham  to  our  father ;  for  I  say  unto  you, 
that  God  is  able  of  these  stones  to  raise  up  children 
unto  Abraham."  ^  It  was  more  plainly  alluded  to 
by  our  Saviour,  when  he  said  to  the  chief  priests  and 
-elders,  "  The  kingdom  of  God  shall  be  taken  from 
you,  and  given  to  a  nation  bringing  forth  the  fruits 
thereof." 2  When  the  Jews  said,  "Abraham  is  our 
father,"  Jesus  replied,  "  If  ye  were  Abraham's  chil- 
dren, ye  would  do  the  works  of  Abraham."  ^  And 
to  Nicodemus  he  said,  "  That  which  is  born  of  the 
flesh  is  flesh,  and  that  which  is  born  of  the  Spirit  is 
spirit.  Marvel  not  that  I  said  unto  thee.  Ye  must 
be  born  again."  *  So  also  Paul  says,  "  They  are  not 
all  Israel  who  are  of  Israel ;  neither  because  they 
are   the   seed  of  Abraham    are   they  all  children. 

1  Matt.  iii.  9.  •    3  John  viii.  39,  44. 

2  Matt.  xxi.  43.  4  John  iii.  6,  7. 


THE   TECNOBAPTIST.  55 

They  who  are  the  children  of  the  flesh,  these  are 
not  the  children  of  God ;  but  the  children  of  the 
promise  are  counted  for  the  seed."^  And  to  the 
Christians  of  Galatia  he  says,  "  Now  we,  brethren, 
as  Isaac  was,  are  the  children  of  promise."  ^  Again 
he  says,  "  He  is  not  a  Jew  who  is  one  outwardly ; 
but  he  is  a  Jew  who  is  one  inwardly."  ^  And 
again,  "  There  is  neither  Jew  nor  Greek  ;  for  ye 
are  all  one  in  Christ  Jesus.  And,  if  ye  be  Christ's, 
then  are  ye  Abraham's  seed,  and  heirs  according  to 
the  promise."  * 

§  119.  Mr.  A.  Undoubtedly  it  is  important  to 
keep  this  distinction  always  in  view,  when  we  con- 
sider the  Jews  with  reference  to  the  Christian 
church.  In  general,  if  the  various  terms  used  in 
Scripture  concerning  Israel  as  a  nation  be  in  the 
same  or  nearly  the  same  sense  applied  to  Christians 
under  the  New  Testament,  where  is  the  type,  and 
where  the  antitype  ?  Where  is  "  the  true  Israel," 
as  distinguished  from  "  Israel  after  the  flesh  "  ?  and 
where  are  we  to  learn  either  the  character,  privi- 
leges, or  duties,  of  true  believers  ?  But  I  interrupt 
you.     Proceed  with  your  parallel. 

§  120.  Mr.  B.  Secondly,  when  the  church  con- 
sisted of  the  carnal  descendants  of  Abraham,  they 
became  such,  of  course,  by  carnal  birth ;  but,  since 
it  has  been  transferred  to  the  spiritual  seed  of  Abra- 

1  Kom.  ix.  6-8.  3  Rom.  ii.  28,  29. 

2  Gal.  iv.  28.  4  Qal.  iii.  28,  29. 


56  THE  TECNOBAPTIST. 

ham,  all  who  come  into  existence  by  carnal  birth 
must  be  born  again,  —  a  spiritual  birth,  —  or  they 
cannot  become  true  descendants  of  Abraham,  nor 
enter  into  the  true  church.  Thus  Jesus  says,  "  Ex- 
cept a  man  be  born  again,  he  cannot  enter  into  the 
kingdom  of  God."  ^  Consider  to  whom  he  addressed 
this  remark, — to  Nicodemus,  of  the  seed  of  Abraham 
according  to  the  flesh,  a  Pharisee,  a  ruler  of  the  Jews, 
a  master  or  teacher  of  Israel,  and  believing  himself 
assuredly  already  in  the  church  or  kingdom  of  God ; 
yea,  that  he  was  born  into  it.  But  Jesus  announced 
that  the  new  dispensation  was  at  hand ;  under  which, 
being  born  of  the  lineage  of  Abraham,  Isaac,  and 
Jacob  —  how  much  more  being  born  of  any  other 
lineage !  —  will  not  bring  one  into  the  kingdom  of 
God  ;  that  even  "  an  Hebrew  of  the  Hebrews  "  — 
how  much  more  a  Gentile  !  — "must  be  born  again," 
"  born  of  water  and  the  Spirit,"  or  "  he  cannot  enter 
into  the  kingdom  of  God."  So  John  tells  us,  that, 
to  as  many  as  received  the  word,  "  he  gave  power 
to  become  the  sons  of  God ;  who  were  born,  not  of 
blood,  nor  of  the  will  of  the  flesh,  nor  of  the  will 
of  man,  but  of  God."  ^  And  Peter  speaks  to  the 
same  effect.^ 

§  121.  Mr.  C.  The  language  of  Peter  may  be 
paraphrased  thus :  Having  been  regenerated,  not 
by  "  corruptible  seed,"  not  by  virtue  of  descent  from 
human  parents,  "  but  by  incorruptible  ;  "  not  laying 

1  John  iii.  3,  5.  2  John  i.  12,  13.  3  i  Pet.  i.  23. 


THE  TECNOBAPTIST.  57 

the  stress  of  your  confidence  on  your  pedigree  from 
Abraham,  if  you  had  the  honor  to  descend  from  that 
illustrious  patriarch  ;  for  that  descent  could  not 
entitle  you  to  the  important  blessings  of  the  gospel. 
It  is  by  means  of  the  efficiency  of  the  ''  word  of 
God  "  upon  your  hearts,  even  that  powerful  word 
"  which  lives  and  endures  for  ever,"  that  you  are  be- 
come entitled  to  these  glorious  evangelical  privileges. 

§  122.  Mr,  B.  Thirdly,  we  have  seen  that  the 
spiritual  children  have  their  spiritual  parents  in 
the  spiritual  church,  as  formerly  the  carnal  chil- 
dren had  their  carnal  parents  in  the  carnal  church 
(§§  93-98).  I  will  not  repeat  the  texts  quoted  by 
Mr.  C.  (§  98). 

§  123.  Fourthly,  the  spiritual  parents  are  sup- 
plied with  the  means  by  which  they  may  bring  spi- 
ritual children  into  the  spiritual  church.  They  may 
beget  them  "  through  the  gospel,"  as  Paul  begot 
the  Corinthians."  ^  In  the  parable  of  the  sower, 
Jesus  said,  "  The  seed  is  the  word  of  God  ;  "  ^  and 
though  he  then  spoke  of  vegetable  generation,  yet 
the  analogy  holds  good.  Again :  James  says  of 
Christians,  that  God  begat  them  ''  with  the  word 
of  truth  ;  "  ^  and  Peter  speaks  of  them  as  "  being 
born  again,  not  of  corruptible  seed,  but  of  incor- 
ruptible, by  the  word  of  God,  which  liveth  and 
abideth  for  ever."  * 

1  1  Cor.  iv.  15.  3  James  i.  18. 

2  Luke  viii.  11.  4  i  Pet.  i.  23. 


58  THE   TECNOBAPTIST. 

§  124.  Mr.  A.  In  the  fifth  place,  I  would  remind 
you  of  a  practice,  noticed  in  the  Old  Testament,  at 
the  birth  of  an  infant,  which  is  common  to  the 
humbling  circumstances  in  which  all  human  beings 
are  brought  into  the  world,  and  which  will  farther 
illustrate  baptism.  In  Ezekiel,  the  commencement 
of  the  Jewish  nation  is  compared  to  the  birth  of  an 
infant  ;  and  the  Lord  is  represented  as  saying, 
"  Then  washed  I  thee  with  water  ;  yea,  I  thorough- 
ly washed  away  thy  blood  from  thee."  ^  We  may 
hence  gather  the  designed  analogy  of  Christian  bap- 
tism. From  the  absolute  bodily  wants  of  a  new-born 
babe,  we  are  taught  the  spiritual  wants  of  the  soul ; 
from  that  which  the  new-born  babe  requires  to  be 
done  for  its  preservation  and  health,  we  are  led 
onward  by  baptism  to  consider  what  blessings  are 
requisite  for  the  soul  at  its  spiritual  birth,  for  its 
preservation  and  health.  Thus  the  Christian  father, 
Jerome,  remarks,  that  "  as  the  bodies  of  infants,  as 
soon  as  they  are  born,  need  to  be  washed,  so  our 
spiritual  birth  needs  this  salutary  washing." 

§  125.  Mr.  B.  Your  remarks  are  very  just ;  and 
I  was  about  to  remark,  that,  fifthly,  the  spiritual 
infants  thus  born  of  spiritual  parents  bear  a  strong 
analogy  to  carnal  infants.  As  the  latter  have  need 
to  be  washed  so  soon  as  born  ;  so,  not  before,  but 
after,  the  second  birth,  the  spiritual  infant  needs 
"  the  washing  of  regeneration :  "  "therefore  Ananias 

1  Ezek.  xvi.  5,  9. 


THE  TECNOBAPTIST.  69 

said  to  Saul,  "  Arise,  and  be  baptized,  and  wash 
away  thy  sins."  ^  Thus  it  seems  that  the  spiritual 
infants  are  not  freed  from  the  defilement  of  their 
sins  till  they  have  manifested  an  humble  and  obe- 
dient spirit,  and  made  open  profession  of  their  faith, 
by  submitting  to  the  command  of  Christ.  And  they 
do  not  come  from  the  spiritual  birth  full  grown  and 
matured  in  strength,  as  Pallas  is  fabled  to  have 
sprung  from  the  brain  of  Jove ;  but  as  the  carnal 
babe  is  physically  weak,  so  the  spiritual  babe  is 
spiritually  weak.  As  the  carnal  babe  cannot  use 
strong  meat,  but  must  be  nourished  by  milk ;  so  the 
spiritual  babes  "  have  need  of  milk,  and  not  of 
strong  meat :  for  every  one,"  says  Paul,  "  that  useth 
milk,  is  unskilful  in  the  word  of  righteousness ;  for 
he  is  a  babe.  But  strong  meat  belongeth  to  them 
that  are  of  full  age  ;  even  to  those  who,  by  reason  of 
use,  have  their  senses  exercised  to  discern  both 
good  and  evil."  ^  And  so  Peter,  after  reminding 
the  Christians  whom  he  addressed  that  they  were 
born  again,  of  incorruptible  seed,  exhorts  them 
thus :  "  Wherefore,  as  new-born  babes,  desire  the 
sincere  milk  of  the  word,  that  ye  may  grow  there- 
by." ^  As  the  carnal  infants  grow  and  strengthen, 
so  do  the  spiritual  infants  "  grow  in  grace,  and  in 
the  knowledge  of  our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus 
Christ."  *    Though  at  first  "  weak  in  faith,"  they 

1  Acts  xxii.  16.  3  1  Pet.  ii.  1,  2. 

2  Heb.  V.  12-14.  *  2  Pet.  iii.  18. 


60  THE  TECNOBAPTIST. 

come  at  last  "  unto  a  perfect  man,  —  unto  the  mea- 
sure of  the  stature  of  the  fuhiess  of  Christ."^  They 
are  "no  more  children,  tossed  to  and  fro,  and  carried 
about  with  every  wind  of  doctrine,"  ^  but  "stead- 
fast, unmovable,  always  abounding  in  the  work  of 
the  Lord."  This  early  weakness  and  gradual  growth 
are  not  sufficiently  borne  in  mind  in  judging  the 
conduct  of  professors.  *  When  a  Christian  falls  into 
some  of  those  sins  to  which  all  persons  are  more  or 
less  liable,  so  long  as  they  remain  in  this  mortal 
state,  it  is  generally  considered  as  an  aggravation, 
rather  than  a  mitigation,  of  the  fault,  that  "  he  has 
but  recently  professed  religion."  He  is  expected  to 
be  strongest  during  the  period  of  his  spiritual  in- 
fancy. 

§  126.  Sixthly,  the  analogy  may  be  applied  to 
the  results  of  the  two  births.  Birth  placed  the 
carnal  seed  of  Abraham  in  a  certain  relation  to 
the  church :  second  birth  places  his  spiritual  seed 
in  the  same  relation  now.  By  being  born,  those 
carnal  infants  became  little  children ;  by  being  born 
again,  the  spiritual  infants  "  become  as  little  chil- 
dren." Here  it  is  not  I,  but  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
the  Word  of  God,  who  points  out  the  analogy ;  and 
this  he  has  done  so  often  and  so  plainly,  it  is  won- 
derful that  any  one  should  go  astray.  He  says, 
"  Ye  must  be  born  again  ;  "  "  Except  a  man  be 
born  again,  he  cannot  see  the  kingdom  of  God ; " 

1  Eph.  iv.  13.  2  Eph.  iv.  14. 


THE   TECNOBAPTIST.  61 

and,  in  explanation,  "  Except  a  man  be  born  of 
water  and  the  Spirit,  he  cannot  enter  into  the  king- 
dom of  God."  ^  On  another  occasion,  he  says,  what 
seems  to  be  a  paraphrase  of  these  words,  intended 
to  make  his  meaning  still  more  plain,  "  Except  ye 
be  converted,  and  become  as  little  children,  ye  shall 
not  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven."  ^  Again  : 
"  Whosoever  shall  humble  himself  as  this  little 
child,  the  same  is  the  greatest  in  the  kingdom  of 
heaven."  ^  And  yet  again  :  "  Suffer  little  children 
to  come  unto  me  ;  for  of  such  (toioutoTi)  is  the 
kingdom  of  God.  Verily  I  say  unto  you.  Whoso- 
ever shall  not  receive  the  kingdom  of  God  as  a  little 
child  shall  in  no  wise  enter  therein  ; "  or,  as  the 
same  passage  is  rendered  in  Prof.  Murdock's  trans- 
lation of  the  Syriac  Testament,  ''  Suffer  little  chil- 
dren to  come  to  me  ;  for  of  those  that  are  like  them, 
of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  Yerily  I  say  to 
you,  that  he  who  shall  not  receive  the  kingdom  of 
God  as  a  little  child  will  not  enter  it."  * 

§  127.  Seventhly,  if  baptism  be  substituted  for 
circumcision,  it  is  not  a  mere  out-of-doors  matter, 
but  is  a  rite  within  the  church,  —  a  sign  which 
designates  the  seed  of  Abraham.  On  this  assump- 
tion, all  the  passages  which  I  have  quoted  show  that 
no  one  should  receive  baptism  till  he  has  been  born 
again.     We  have  seen  that  John  and  Peter  speak  of 

1  John  iii.  3,  5,  7.  2  Matt,  xviii.  3.  8  Matt,  xviii.  4. 

*  Luke  xviii.  16,  17.     See  also  Mark  x.  14,  15.   Matt.  xix.  14. 

6 


62  THE   TECNOBAPTIST. 

all  Christians  as  being  "  born  again  ; "  that  Paul 
speaks  of  all  Christians  as  "  Abraham's  seed  ;  "  that 
Jesus  declares,  that  except  one  be  born  again,  of  the 
Spirit,  he  cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God, — 
that  he  must  receive  it  "  as  a  little  child,"  or  he 
"  shall  in  no  wise  enter  therein."  This,  in  connec- 
tion with  the  idea  that  baptism  is  now  what  circum- 
cision was  formerly,  fully  confirms  our  conclusion, 
which  we  reached  by  a  logical  process  from  our 
premises :  "  Those  persons,  and  none  other,  who 
have  been  regenerated  and  born  again,  are  proper 
subjects  of  baptism"  (§  116).  They  must  first,  by 
a  spiritual  birth,  become  the  "  seed  of  Abraham," 
as  Jewish  children  did  formerly  by  a  carnal  birth. 
Having  become  Abraham's  seed,  they  must  be  out- 
wardly designated  as  such  by  baptism,  as  formerly 
by  circumcision  ;  for  Abraham's  spiritual  seed  are 
not  entered  into  the  visible  church  without  baptism. 
They  must  "  be  born  of  water  and  the  Spirit." 
Thus,  without  baptism,  the  spiritual  child  of  Abra- 
ham will  be  "  cut  off  from  his  people,"  deprived  of 
all  church-privileges,  as  formerly  the  carnal  seed 
were  cut  off  if  they  were  not  circumcised.^ 

§  128.  Mr.  A.  I  agree  with  you  here,  and  think 
that  Mr.  C.  erred  in  saying  that  the  children  of 
believers  are  members  of  the  church  in  virtue 
of  their  birth  (§§  83,  87).  It  is  certain  that  all 
men  are  conceived  and  born  in  sin  ;  that  what  is 

1  Gen.  xvii.  14. 


THE   TECNOBAPTIST.  63 

born  of  the  flesh  is  flesh ;  that  they  who  are  in  the 
flesh  cannot  please  God  ;  and  that  none  can  enter 
into  the  kingdom  of  God,  except  he  be  regenerate 
and  born  anew,  of  water  and  the  Holy  Ghost. 
What  then  ?  Shall  the  child  be  excluded  from 
baptism  because  he  was  not  born  in  the  church  ? 
By  no  means ;  for  baptism  is  the  child's  spiritual 
birth  into  the  church  of  Christ. 

§  129.  Mr.  C.  I  do  not  suppose  that  the  ordi- 
nance, whenever  legitimately  administered,  is  neces- 
sarily accompanied  with  any  physical  or  moral 
influence  upon  him  who  receives  it.  Yet  a  gra- 
cious God  may,  even  at  the  moment  in  which  the 
ordinance  is  administered,  accompany  the  outward 
emblem  with  the  blessing  which  it  represents, — even 
"  the  washing  of  regeneration,  and  renewing  of  the 
Holy  Spirit."  This  indeed  may  not  be,  and  most 
commonly,  so  far  as  we  can  judge,  is  not,  the  case. 

§  130.  Mr.  B.  Whether,  by  saying  that  God 
"  may  accompany  the  outward  emblem  with  the 
blessing  which  it  represents,"  you  mean  to  assert 
his  power,  or  our  want  of  positive  knowledge  on 
the  subject,  I  agree  with  you.  This  may  be  ;  for 
all  things  are  possible  with  God.  He  has  power  to 
endow  an  infant,  at  the  moment  of  birth,  with  all 
the  faculties  of  the  most  mature  intellect,  and  all  the 
learning  of  the  ripest  scholar.  Yet,  should  we  hear 
of  some  work  of  deep  erudition  purporting  to  have 
been  written  by  a  little  babe,  we  would  not  hesitate 


64  THE  TECNOBAPTIST. 

to  pronounce  it  incredible,  impossible  ;  meaning  that 
it  is  impossible,  as  God  has  been  pleased  to  regulate 
the  intellect  of  man.  On  the  other  hand,  our  finite 
reason  may  be  in  error  as  to  the  whole  matter  wliich 
we  are  considering ;  and  things  may  be  which  to 
us  seem  quite  impossible.  But,  in  regard  to  our 
opinions  and  actions,  we  must  be  guided,  not  by 
possibilities,  but  by  certainties,  so  far  as  we  can 
attain  them ;  and  by  probabilities,  when  certainties 
cannot  be  had. 

§  131.  Mr.  C.  No  one  should  be  satisfied  with 
a  faith  which  rests  on  mere  probability,  no  matter 
how  high  its  degree.  If  infant-baptism  be  not  taught 
in  the  Scriptures,  there  can  be  no  reason  for  con- 
tinuing the  ordinance. 

§  132.  Mr.  B.  Certainly  we  must  not  assume, 
that,  because  God  may  do  a  thing,  therefore  he  does 
that  thing,  and,  on  that  bare  assumption,  found  our 
conduct  in  momentous  things.  We  must  not  as- 
sume, that,  because  he  may,  therefore  he  does,  con- 
fer "  an  inward  and  spiritual  grace,"  and  for  this 
only  reason,  without  a  spark  of  evidence,  proceed 
to  confer  an  "  outward  and  visible  sign  "  of  that 
grace  ;  especially  when  it  is  acknowledged,  that 
"  most  commonly,  so  far  as  we  can  judge,"  God 
does  not  "  accompany  the  outward  emblem  with 
the  blessing  which  it  represents,"  and  more  espe- 
cially when  we  cannot  assort  so  much  as  a  proba- 
bility that  it  is  ever  otherwise. 


THE   TECNOBAPTIST.  65 

§  133.  Mr.  A.  It  is  very  true,  that  we  must  look 
at  man  as  God  has  created  him,  in  considering  the 
question  now  before  us.  But  is  not  an  infant  as 
capable  of  receiving  spiritual  blessing  now  as  eigh- 
teen and  a  half  centuries  ago  ?  John  the  Baptist 
received  the  Holy  Ghost  at  his  birth,  and  was  there- 
fore born  again,  —  was  a  child  of  God,  a  new  crea- 
ture, an  heir  of  God,  sanctified  by  the  Spirit,  and 
prepared  for  the  kingdom  of  God ;  for  it  is  said, 
^'  He  shall  be  filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  even  from 
his  mother's  womb."  ^ 

§  134.  3Ir.  B.  Which  Watson,  the  great  Metho- 
dist theologian,  explains  as  meaning,  not  that  he 
was  born  of  the  Spirit,  but  that  "  he  was  placed 
under  the  spiritual  influence  and  training  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,  for  his  great  office,  from  the  earliest 
period  of  life."^  It  is  very  certain  that  being  filled 
with  the  Holy  Ghost  is  far  different  from  being  born 
of  the  Spirit.  The  former  was  a  favor  bestowed 
upon  comparatively  few ;  while  all  true  Christians 
enjoy  the  latter.  The  former  conferred  miraculous 
powers ;  ^  while  the  latter  does  not.  The  latter  is  a 
means  of  entrance  into  the  kingdom  of  God,  as 
reformed  by  the  Messiah :  therefore,  if  John  was 
born  again  "  from  his  mother's  womb,"  he  was  in 
that  spiritual  church  or  kingdom.  But  he  was  not 
in  it ;  for  Jesus  said,  "  Among  them  that  are  born 
of  women,  there  hath  not  risen  a  greater  than  John 

1  Luke  i.  15.      2  Watson's  Exposition,  Luke  i.  15.       s  Acts  ii.  4. 
6* 


QQ  THE   TECNOBAPTIST. 

the  Baptist :  notwithstanding,  he  that  is  least  in  the 
kingdom  of  heaven  is  greater  than  he."  ^  Beside, 
we  know  that  John  died  before  the  new  dispensation 
commenced.  Yet  I  am  willing  to  concede  that 
John  was  born  of  the  Spirit  in  his  infancy.  We 
must  bear  in  mind,  however,  that  he  was  selected 
and  marked  ont  by  the  Lord  for  a  special  purpose. 

§  135.  Mr.  C.  It  is  true  that  John  was  an  ex- 
traordinary character.  He  was  to  be  great  in  the 
sight  of  the  Lord  :  he  was  a  prophet;  yea,  and  more 
than  a  prophet.  But  it  is  also  true  that  he  was  no 
more  than  a  man,  of  the  fallen  race  of  Adam,  and 
by  nature  no  better  than  others  ;  and  in  him- the  fact 
is  established,  that  an  infant  may  receive  the  Holy 
Ghost. 

§  136.  Mr.  B.  It  is  certainly  an  instance  in 
which  God  was  pleased  to  exercise  the  power  of 
filling  an  infant  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  —  a  power 
which  I  have  already  admitted  that  he  possesses 
(§  130)  ;  but  we  cannot  thence  infer  that  all  chil- 
dren, or  that  any  other  children,  are  thus  spiritually 
blessed.  I  admit  that  children  "  are  as  capable  of 
receiving  spiritual  blessing  "  now  as  tlien  (§  133)  ; 
and  so  is  water  as  capable  of  being  converted  into 
wine,  if  the  same  almiglity  Word  should  be  pleased 
thus  again  to  manifest  his  power.  Yet  we  must  not 
thence  infer  that  such  transubstantiation  is  of  fre- 
quent occurrence,  nor  even  that  it  ever  happens  in 

1  Matt.  xi.  11. 


THE   TECNOBAPTIST.  67 

our  days.  If  it  were  so,  we  would  cease  to  regard 
it  as  wonderful,  or  as  an  evidence  of  the  divinity 
of  Jesus.  And  thus  the  case  of  John  the  Baptist 
affords  no  argument  for  your  cause,  but  rather 
against  it :  for  every  thing  connected  with  the  con- 
ception and  birth  of  this  great  forerunner  of  Christ 
was  miraculous  ;  and  this  peculiarity  of  being  filled 
with  the  Holy  Ghost  at  such  an  early  period  of  life 
would  scarcely  have  been  mentioned  among  the 
wonders  of  his  youth,  if  it  had  been  a  thing  which 
frequently  happens  to  children.  It  was  evidently 
promised  as  something  unusual,  remarkable,  marvel- 
lous, miraculous, — the  very  crowning  miracle  of  all. 
§  137.  Mr.  A.  It  is  nowhere  determined  at  what 
time  of  life,  or  under  what  circumstances,  the  gift 
of  the  Spirit  is  imparted  ;  nay,  the  contrary  is  inti- 
mated, by  comparing  it  to  the  blowing  of  the  wind, 
which,  in  its  mode  of  action,  is  out  of  the  reach  of 
our  rules  and  calculations  :  "  The  wind  bloweth 
where  it  listeth,  and  thou  hearest  the  sound  there- 
of, but  canst  not  tell  whence  it  cometh,  or  whither  it 
goeth:  so  is  every  one  that  is  born  of  the  Spirit."^ 
Who  can  pretend  accurately  to  draw  the  line,  or 
assert  the  period  it  first  becomes  possible  for  the 
Spirit  of  God  to  be  stamped  upon  an  immortal  soul  ? 
Who  can  declare  the  manner  in  which  the  Father  of 
spirits  acts  upon  our  spirits,  or  the  rules  by  which 
he  is  guided  ? 

1  John  iii.  8. 


68  THE   TECNOBAPTIST. 

§  138.  Mr.  B.  Who  can,  indeed  ?  And  there- 
fore who  shall  dare  pronounce  that  the  Father  of 
spirits,  in  any  given  instance,  has  been  pleased  to 
regenerate  an  unconscious  infant,  and,  on  that  pre- 
sumption, give  it  the  water-birth,  the  sign  of  the 
spiritual  birth  ?  It  is  strange  to  plead  our  unavoid- 
able ignorance  as  a  reason  for  acting  as  though  we 
had  that  very  knowledge  which  you  say  we  cannot 
possibly  have  ;  to  assume  that  the  Spirit  of  God  is 
stamped  upon  the  soul  of  an  infant,  for  the  sole 
reason  that  we  cannot  pretend  to  know  when,  in  the 
usual  economy  of  God,  it  first  becomes  possible  for 
it  to  be  so  stamped  !  And  your  citation  proves 
nothing  as  to  infancy,  youth,  or  age  ;  but  only  that 
the  Spirit  of  God,  like  the  kingdom  of  God,  "  cometh 
not  with  observation."^  Indeed,  I  might  urge  that 
your  quotation  is  more  in  my  favor  than  against 
me  ;  for  though  we  cannot  tell  of  the  wind  "  whence 
it  cometh,  or  whither  it  goeth,"  yet,  as  Jesus  says, 
"  thou  hearest  the  sound  thereof."  We  have  evi- 
dence that  it  is  blowing ;  its  effects  are  obvious  to 
the  senses  ;  for  we  see  the  leaves  shaken  by  the 
zephyr,  hear  the  gale  rushing  through  the  forest, 
and  feel  it  fan  our  cheeks.  In  commenting  on  this 
passage,  the  great  John  Wesley,  the  learned  Adam 
Clark,  Archbishop  Tillotson,  Dr.  Whitby,  Beausobre, 
and,  I  believe,  all  other  giossographers,  concur  in 
explaining  it  to  express,  that,  as  the  wind  itself  is 

1  Luke  xvii.  20. 


THE   TECNOBAPTIST.  69 

imperceptible  to  the  sight,  while  its  effects  are  ob- 
vious ;  so,  though  the  Holy  Spirit  and  his  operations 
cannot  be  perceived,  yet  the  effects  of  his  opera- 
tions are  clearly  discernible.  Then,  when  one  is 
born  of  the  Spirit,  we  will  have  evidence  of  the 
Spirit's  operation.  And  we  must  have  evidence 
that  God  has  been  pleased  to  bestow  the  blessing  of 
regeneration,  before  we  give  baptism,  which  you  call 
the  sign  of  regeneration.  We  must  have  some  as- 
surance that  the  spiritual  infant  is  born,  before  we 
proceed  to  circumcise  him  with  "  the  circumcision 
of  Christ."  I  do  not  say  that  we  must  know:  the 
Searcher  of  hearts  alone  can  know  in  any  case  that 
a  soul  is  regenerate.  We  have  Scripture  warrant  for 
baptizing  such  as  confess  that  they  believe  with  all 
the  heart  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God. 
We  must  receive  the  profession  of  faith,  though  it 
may  be  false.  Yet,  if  the  subject  be  insincere,  it  is 
his  own  want  of  faith,  and  not  another's,  which  inva- 
lidates his  baptism;  and  this  is  strictly  just.  When- 
ever the  Spirit  shall  manifest  his  presence  and 
regenerating  power  with  an  infant,  I  insist  that  such 
infant  should  be  baptized  ;  but  not  before.  If  we 
assume,  that,  because  God  may  regenerate  an  infant, 
therefore  he  does  regenerate  the  infants  of  believers, 
why  not  assume  the  same  of  all  other  infants,  since 
his  power  extends  equally  to  all  ?  And,  if  we  as- 
sume it  of  such  infants  as  we  wish  to  baptize,  will 
we  not  baptize  thousands  of  unregenerate  persons  ? 


70  THE   TECNOBAPTIST. 

Can  you  deny  tliat  such  is  the  actual  result  of  your 
practice  ? 

§  139.  Mr.  C.  That  baptism  is  not  more  gene- 
rally connected  with,  or  followed  by,  that  spiritual 
benefit  of  which  it  is  a  striking  emblem,  is  indeed  to 
be  lamented.  I  do  not  ascribe  to  this  sacrament  that 
kind  of  inherent  virtue  of  which  some  who  bear  the 
Christian  name  have  spoken  and  inferred  so  much. 
I  do  not  believe  that  baptism  is  regeneration,  but 
consider  this  a  doctrine  having  no  foundation  in  the 
word  of  God,  and  eminently  fitted  to  deceive  and 
destroy  the  soul.  It  may,  without  impropriety,  be 
said  to  be  indigenous  in  the  Roman-Catholic  system  ; 
but,  in  the  midst  of  the  general  principles  of  Pro- 
testants, it  ought  to  be  regarded  as  a  poisonous 
exotic.  The  most  objectionable  form  of  the  doctrine 
is,  that  the  spiritual  change  which  the  Scriptures 
designate  by  the  term  "  regeneration "  is  always 
attendant  upon,  and  effected  by,  the  rite  of  baptism, 
when  duly  administered. 

§  140.  Mr.  B.  I  think  that  the  doctrine,  in  all 
its  aspects,  may  be  easily  disposed  of  by  ajoplying  to 
it  the  truths  we  have  already  agreed  upon,  or  esta- 
blished by  syllogistic  deductions  from  your  own  pre- 
mises. Under  the  old  dispensation,  the  church 
consisted  of  the  carnal  descendants  of  Abraham, 
who  were  brought  into  the  church  by  carnal  birth 
(§§  21,  23).  Under  the  new  dispensation,  the 
church   consists  of  his  spiritual  descendants,  who 


THE   TECNOBAPTIST.  71 

are  brought  into  it  by  a  spiritual  birth  (§§  36,  41). 
Thus  regeneration  and  spiritual  birth  are  to  the  spi- 
ritual descendants  of  Abraham  what  natural  genera- 
tion and  carnal  birth  were  to  the  carnal  descendants. 
The  spiritual  descendant  is  "  begotten  through  the 
gospel,"  and  "  born  of  the  Spirit,"  "  not  of  corrupti- 
ble seed,  but  of  incorruptible,  by  the  word  of  God  " 
(§§  46-48).  Keeping  these  truths  in  view,  let  it 
now  be  assumed  that  baptism  is  an  infant's  spiritual 
birth  into  the  church  (§  128)  ;  in  other  words,  that 
baptism  is  the  same  thing  as  regeneration  and  the 
new  birth  ;  the  recipient  of  baptism  being  regene- 
rated and  born  anew  in  and  by  the  act  of  baptism. 
The  following  are  the  results  :  — 

§  141.  Firstly,  baptism  being  the  child's  spiritual 
birth,  it  is  not  regenerate  and  born  anew  until  it  be 
baptized.  Then  it  is  not  regenerate  and  born  anew 
when  first  presented  for  baptism  :  if  not,  it  is  not 
a  proper  subject  of  baptism  (§  116).  Then  it  must 
be  actually  baptized  in  order  to  make  it  a  suitable 
person  to  be  baptized.  But,  if  it  be  not  a  proper 
subject  when  presented,  the  minister  has  no  autho- 
rity to  baptize  it,  though  it  would  be  regenerated 
and  born  again  in  and  by  the  act  of  baptism,  and 
thus  become  a  proper  subject. 

§  142.  Secondly,  if  an  infant  be  baptized  (that 
is,  regenerated  and  born  anew),  and  afterward,  when 
it  becomes  capable  of  receiving  instruction,  be  in- 
structed in  "  the  word  of  God"  (which  is  the  "incor 


72  THE   TECNOBAPTIST. 

niptible  seed"  through  which  it  is  begotten),  such 
infant,  as  to  its  spiritual  nature,  is  first  quickened 
and  born,  and  afterward  begotten ;  wliich  is  absurd. 

§  143.  Thirdly,  judging  the  Old-Testament  church 
by  the  analogy  thus  furnished  by  the  New-Testament 
church,  we  must  conclude  that  circumcision  was  the 
infant's  carnal  birth  into  the  church  ;  in  other 
words,  that  birth  and  circumcision  were  the  same 
thing,  —  that  the  infant  was  quicked  and  born  in 
and  by  the  act  of  circumcision.  This  is  untrue  ; 
for  common  sense  tells  us  it  could  not  be.  The 
command  of  God,  and  the  history  of  the  church, 
teach  that  it  was  not  so,  but  that  circumcision  did 
not  take  place  till  eight  days  after  the  birth. 

§  144.  Fourthly,  therefore,  the  analogy  furnished 
by  the  history  of  the  Old-Testament  church  teaches 
us  that  baptism  cannot  take  place  till  after  regene- 
ration and  the  new  birth.  But  baptism  is  regenera- 
tion and  the  new  birth  ;  therefore  regeneration  and 
the  new  birth  cannot  take  place  till  after  regenera- 
tion and  the  new  birth ;  which  is  absurd.  Or,  what 
is  the  same  thing,  and  equally  absurd,  baptism  can- 
not take  place  till  after  baptism.  Thus  every  one 
who  holds  that  a  person  is  regenerated  in  and  by 
baptism  must  be  an  Anabaptist,  in  order  to  be  con- 
sistent. But,  as  before  stated  (§  141),  the  minister 
has  no  authority  to  give  the  first  baptism,  in  order 
to  prepare  the  subject  for  the  second. 

§  145.     To  me  this  seems  to  dispose  of  the  first 


THE   TECNOBAPTIST.  73 

hypothesis.  When  it  is  acknowledged  that  the  "  in- 
corruptible seed,"  "  the  word  of  God,"  is  the  means 
which  must  be  used  in  order  to  effect  the  regenera- 
tion and  spiritual  birth  of  a  soul,  nothing  can  be  so 
absurd  as  to  suppose  that  one  is  regenerate  and 
spiritually  born  who  is  incapable  of  receiving  the 
word  of  God. 

§  146.  3Ir.  A.  Without  question,  the  proper 
means  must  be  used,  or  the  child  will  lose  the  spi- 
ritual life  which  it  gained  at  baptism. 

§  147.  Mr.  B.  What !  use  the  means  after  the 
end  is  attained  ?  Must  the  spiritual  seed  of  Abra- 
ham be  first  born,  and  then  begotten  ?  When  the 
child  is  baptized  according  to  the  Episcopal  ritual, 
the  minister  says,  "  Seeing  now  that  this  child  is 
regenerate,"  &c. ;  and  then  follows  the  thanksgiving, 
that  it  "  hath  pleased  "  God  to  regenerate  tlie  infant 
with  his  Holy  Spirit.  The  end,  therefore,  having 
been  attained,  must  we  then  begin  to  use  the  proper 
means  ?  Did  Asa  set  the  battle  in  array  after  God 
gave  him  the  victory  ?  Not  so  ;  and  to  what  purpose 
would  it  have  been  afterward  ?  Remember,  we  are 
speaking  of  the  means  which  must  be  used  "  in 
order  to  effect  the  regeneration  of  a  soul "  (§  145). 
When  the  soul  is  once  regenerated,  there  is  no  ne- 
cessity to  continue  our  efforts  to  effect  regeneration, 
which  is  already  effected.  The  persons  thus  regene- 
rated should  use  the  spiritual  food,  the  means  of 
sustaining  the  spiritual  life  gained  by  regeneration 

7 


74  THE  TECNOBAPTIST. 

and  spiritual  birth  ;  and  that  food  is  "the  sincere 
milk  of  the  word."  But  it  is  not  then  used  as  the 
means  of  effecting  regeneration  and  spiritual  birth. 
§  148.  The  absurdities  into  which  we  are  led  by 
the  hypothesis,  that  baptism  is  the  child's  spiritual 
birth,  proves  the  hypothesis  false.  How,  indeed,  is 
it  possible  to  regard  baptism  as  a  spiritual  birth  ? 
Truly,  if  one  be  baptized  "with  the  Holy  Ghost,"  it 
might  seem  consistent  to  call  such  baptism  a  spiritual 
birth.  But  who  administers  such  baptism  ?  John 
the  Baptist  did  not  pretend  to  do  more  than  "  bap- 
tize with  water ; "  but  he  told  of  One  mightier  than 
he,  who  should  "baptize  with  the  Holy  Ghost." ^ 
Who  is  this  mightier  than  John  the  Baptist  ?  Is  it 
the  priest  who  now  administers  the  rite  of  baptism  ? 
By  no  means.  It  is  none  other  than  "  the  Lamb  of 
God,  who  taketh  away  the  sin  of  the  world."  The 
priest,  like  John  the  Baptist,  baptizes  "  with  water." 
But  will  you  say  that  baptism  is  the  instrumental 
cause  of  the  spiritual  birth  ?  If  so,  the  cause  must 
not  be  confounded  with  the  effect ;  and  it  is  strange 
that  the  effect  should  be  a  prerequisite  to  the  cause 
(§  116).  Again:  if  this  position  be  correct,  then, 
in  the  Israelitish  church,  circumcision  was  the  in- 
strumental cause  of  carnal  birth  ;  for  what  baptism 
is,  circumcision  was  (§  51).  But  baptism  is  not  the 
cause;  for  "the  word  of  God"  is  the  "incorruptible 
seed,"  and  immediate  cause  of  the  birth  (§  48). 

1  Mark  i.  8. 


THE  TECNOBAPTIST.  75 

§  149.  Mr.  A.  May  it  not  be  that  baptism  is  not 
actually  the  spiritual  birth  of  the  child,  but  that 
the  spiritual  birth  is  coetaneous  with  the  baptism  ; 
that,  in  the  same  instant,  the  Lord  Jesus  baptizes 
"  with  the  Holy  Ghost,"  and  so  justifies  the  minister 
in  saying,  immediately  after  the  baptism,  that  the 
child  ''  is  regenerated,  and  grafted  into  the  body  of 
Christ's  church  "  ? 

§  150.  Mr.  B.  Suppose  this  to  be  true :  still  the 
water-baptism  is  not  the  child's  spiritual  birth,  and 
should  not  be  called  so.  It  is  merely  a  thing  which 
happens  at  the  same  time  with  the  spiritual  birth. 
But  how  does  the  minister  know  that  the  spiritual 
birth  takes  place  at  the  same  moment  with  the 
water-baptism  ?  If  he  think  so,  what  is  his  reason  ? 
If  he  have  no  reason,  why  does  he  not  merely  think 
so,  but  assume  that  it  is  certainly  true,  and  act  and 
speak  on  that  assumption  ?  The  infant  gives  no 
indication  of  it  at  the  time  ;  and  there  is  no  promise 
in  the  Scriptures  that  it  shall  be  so.  Whence,  then, 
is  the  knowledge  derived  ?  But  we  can  prove  that 
this  idea  is  erroneous,  by  testing  it  as  we  did  the 
first  hypothesis  (§  140).  Let  it  be  assumed  that 
baptism  is  a  distinct  thing  from  regeneration  and 
the  new  birth,  yet  that  the  recipient  of  baptism  is 
regenerated  and  born  anew  at  the  same  time  that 
he  is  baptized.     The  results  are  as  follows  :  — 

§  151.  Firstly,  the  child,  when  presented  for 
baptism,  is  not  regenerate  and  born  anew.     If  not, 


76  THE   TECNOBAPTIST. 

he  is  not  a  proper  subject  of  baptism  (§  116). 
Then  he  must  be  actually  baptized,  in  order  that  he 
may,  by  reason  of  the  regeneration  which  accom- 
panies the  rite,  become  a  suitable  person  to  be  bap- 
tized. After  he  becomes  a  proper  subject,  he  may 
be  baptized  ;  but,  as  one  baptism  is  required  to 
make  him  a  proper  subject,  two  baptisms  would  in 
all  cases  be  necessary,  —  thus  making  Anabaptists 
of  all  Pedobaptists.  But,  the  child  not  being  a 
proper  subject  when  presented  for  the  first  baptism, 
the  priest  has  no  authority  to  give  the  first,  in  order 
to  qualify  him  for  the  second  baptism.  It  is  ab- 
surd to  baptize  children  (and  even  adults)  on  the 
strength  of  a  doctrine  which  proA^es  tliat  they  cannot 
be  proper  subjects  till  after  they  are  baptized. 

§  152.  Secondly,  if  an  infant  be  baptized  (being 
at  the  same  time  spiritually  regenerated  and  born), 
and  afterward,  when  it  becomes  capable  of  receiving 
instruction,  be  instructed  in  the  word  of  God  (which 
is  the  "  incorruptible  seed  "  through  which  it  is 
spiritually  begotten),  such  infant,  as  to  its  spiritual 
nature,  is  first  quickened  and  born,  and  afterward 
begotten  ;  which  is  absurd. 

§  153.  Thirdly,  judging  the  Old-Testament 
church  by  the  analogy  furnished  by  the  New- 
Testament  church,  we  must  conclude  that  circum- 
cision was  a  distinct  thing  from  carnal  generation 
and  birth,  yet  that  the  recipient  of  circumcision  was 
carnally  generated  and  born  at  the  same  time  that 


THE   TECNOBAPTIST.  77 

he  was  circumcised.  But  the  express  command  of 
God,  and  the  history  of  the  church,  show  that  cir- 
cumcision did  not  take  place  until  the  eighth  day 
after  birth. 

§  154.  Therefore,  judging  the  New-Testament 
church  by  the  analogy  furnished  by  the  Old-Testa- 
ment church,  we  must  conclude  that  baptism  should 
not  take  place  till  (eight  days,  or  at  least  till  some 
time)  after  regeneration  and  the  new  birth.  This 
is  the  true  doctrine,  if  it  be  true  that ''  baptism  is  to 
the  New-Testament  church  what  circumcision  was 
to  the  Old-Testament  church"  (§  51).  Here  we 
may  ask.  Why  were  circumcision  and  the  carnal 
birth  separated  by  the  space  of  eight  days  ?  It  may 
be  that  the  All-wise  designed,  among  other  things, 
to  forestall  the  error,  into  which  some  have  fallen, 
of  confounding  the  spiritual  birth  with  the  token  of 
it,  —  the  Christian  birth  with  the  Christian  circum- 
cision. If  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  which 
the  Saviour  administers,  be  the  spiritual  birth,  and 
if  water-baptism  have  taken  the  place  of  circum- 
cision, and  if  both  baptisms  happen  at  once,  then 
the  infant,  as  we  have  just  seen,  is  spiritually  born 
and  circumcised  at  the  same  moment,  contrary  to 
"  the  analogy  furnislied  by  the  history  of  the  Old- 
Testament  church"  (§  17). 

§  155.  3Ir.  A.  Perhaps  I  went  too  far.  I  admit 
that  we  have  no  authority  for  supposing  the  moral 
nature  of  the  child  is  changed,  or  that  any  peculiar 


78  THE   TECNOBAPTIST. 

deposit,  or  lodgment  of  grace,  is  made  in  the  heart 
at  the  time.  But  baptism  translates  the  child  from 
the  kingdom  of  darkness  into  the  visible  kingdom 
of  God  on  earth.  Its  relations  to  God  and  to  the 
world  are  changed  by  it.  Thus  the  child  is,  in  a 
certain  sense,  born  again  ;  that  is,  put  into  an  entire 
new  state  of  spiritual  relations,  and  made  an  heir 
of  a  new  inheritance. 

§  156.  Mr.  B.  But  is  the  child  born  again  in 
that  sense  in  which  we  say  that  none  but  those  who 
have  been  regenerated  and  born  anew  are  proper 
subjects  of  baptism  ?  If  not,  it  has  nothing  to  do 
with  our  inquiry.  The  sense  in  which  we  use  it, 
taken  from  one  of  your  own  premises  (§  41),  is  that 
of  being  ''  born  of  the  Spirit,"  and  in  no  less  exalted 
sense.  You  say,  also,  that  the  child,  by  baptism,  is 
"  put  into  an  entire  new  state  of  spiritual  relations." 
So  long  as  we  agree  that  the  premises  are  correct, 
I  must  object  to  this  expression,  as  savoring  of  the 
doctrine,  from  which  you  have  just  receded,  that 
baptism  is  spiritual  regeneration.  Baptism  "  with 
the  Holy  Ghost"  (if  being  born  of  the  Spirit  may 
be  so  called)  changes  one's  spiritual  relations  ; 
makes  those,  who  are  instrumental  in  his  conver- 
sion, his  spiritual  parents ;  in  a  higher  sense,  makes 
God  his  father,  the  church  his  mother,  and  all  true 
Christians  his  brothers  and  sisters.  But  such  is  not 
the  effect  of  water-baptism.  As  it  can  have  no 
effect  upon  the  spirit,  neither  can  it  upon  the  spirit- 


THE   TECXOBAPTIST.  79 

ual  relations.  But  suppose  it  does  change  them  ;  to 
what  extent  ?  Does  the  change  amount  to  regene- 
ration,—  to  being  "  born  of  the  Spirit"  ?  If  not, 
the  child  is  not  regenerate  and  born  anew  ;  and 
hence  he  is  not  a  proper  subject  of  baptism.  The 
idea  which  you  advance  was  expressed  by  Mr.  C. 
some  time  since.  He  said  that  "baptism  visibly 
initiates  into  the  kingdom  of  God,  as  natural  birth 
makes  one  a  subject  of  that  government  in  which 
he  is  born"  (§  38).  If  it  were  only  intended  that 
baptism  is  a  visible  sign  or  token  of  the  spiritual 
birth  by  which  we  are  brought  into  the  kingdom  of 
God,  this  does  not  conflict  with  our  premises,  nor 
the  conclusions  deduced  from  them.  It  is,  no  doubt, 
the  full  extent  to  which  Mr.  0.  would  go  :  but  his 
expression  goes  farther,  making  baptism  into  the 
Christian  church  occupy  the  place  of  birth  into 
the  Jewish  church  ;  whereas,  if  our  premises  be 
correct,  it  is  not  baptism,  but  the  spiritual  birth, 
which  occupies  that  place.  This  is  plainly  stated  in 
one  of  the  propositions  to  which  we  have  agreed 
(§  41). 

§  157.  Mr.  C.  The  native  tendency  of  the  doc- 
trine of  baptismal  regeneration  is  to  beget  a  super- 
stitious reliance  on  an  external  ordinance  ;  to  lower 
our  estimate  of  that  inward  spiritual  sanctification 
which  constitutes  the  essence  of  the  Christian  cha- 
racter ;  to  supersede  that  change  of  heart  of  wliicli 
the  Scriptures  speak  so  much.     It  makes  a  work, 


80  THE   TECNOBAPTIST. 

not  faith,  the  instrument  of  justification.  It  is  a 
heresy,  bearing  the  same  relation  to  baptism  which 
tran substantiation  bears  to  the  Lord's  Supper ;  and 
is,  perhaps,  the  more  perilous  of  the  two.  Transub- 
stantiation  puts  the  eucharistic  bread  and  wine  in 
the  room  of  Christ ;  and  baptismal  regeneration,  or 
a  change  of  heart  necessarily  associated  with  this 
sacrament,  places  a  material  element  —  the  water  in 
the  font  —  in  the  room  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  In  prac- 
tice, it  fosters  the  most  deadly  delusions.  How 
many  may  have  gone  to  the  eternal  state  relying  on 
an  outward  rite  as  their  only  title,  to  discover  their 
fatal  delusion  at  the  judgment-seat !  Beyond  all 
question,  there  is  no  teaching  more  calculated  in 
the  present  day  to  welcome  and  encourage  the 
principles  and  the  progress  of  Romanism  than  that 
which  places  a  sacrament,  however  precious  in  its 
own  place,  in  the  room  of  the  Holy  Spirit  of  God. 
In  truth,  the  doctrine  is,  in  substance,  the  opus 
operatum  of  the  Papists,  which  all  evangelical  Pro- 
testants have  opposed  as  a  mischievous  delusion. 
Its  Popish  character  and  tendency  have  been  ac- 
knowledged by  many  bishops  and  pious  divines  of 
the  church  of  England,  and  of  the  same  denomina- 
tion in  this  country. 

§  158.  Mr.  A.  Inseparable  baptismal  regenera- 
tion is  the  opus  operatum  of  Popery ;  but  the  only 
limitation,  in  administering  ordinances  which  seal 
blessings  to  those  who  receive  them,  is  moral  unfit- 


THE  TECNOBAPTIST.  81 

ness.  There  is  no  such  unfitness  in  infants.  True, 
there  are  some  operations  of  the  Holy  Spirit  —  as 
working  actual  faith,  repentance,  <fec.,  in  the  heart 
—  of  which  an  infant  is  not  capable.  But  when 
God  applies  the  pardon  of  original  guilt,  transfers 
a  person  out  of  the  state  of  nature  into  the  state  of 
grace,  unites  him  as  a  member  of  the  mystical  body 
of  Christ,  accepts  him  for  his  child,  &c.,  these  things 
are  spoken  of  in  Scripture  as  done,  sealed,  and 
applied  to  the  person  by  the  Spirit.  Now,  of  these 
latter  an  infant  is  capable  ;  and  a  person  capable  of 
some  of  the  great  ends  for  which  baptism  is  designed 
may  be  baptized  for  them. 

§  159.  Mr.  B.  We  are  not  discussing  the  capa- 
bleness  of  infants  ;  but,  if  we  were,  the  question 
would  be,  whether  they  are  capable,  not  of  some  of 
the  ends  wrought  by  the  Spirit,  but  of  regeneration 
and  spiritual  birth  ;  for  we  have  settled  that  persons 
regenerated  and  born  anew,  and  none  other,  are 
proper  subjects  of  baptism  (§  116).  You  are  fa- 
miliar with  the  legal  distinction  between  acts,  or 
instruments  of  writing,  which  are  void,  and  those 
which  are  voidable  ;  that  is,  capable  of  being  made 
void.  A  similar  distinction  exists  between  persons 
regenerated  and  born  anew,  and  persons  capable  of 
being  regenerated  and  born  anew.  The  former  are 
already  so  :  the  latter  may,  or  may  not,  become  so. 
It  is  only  those  who  are  already  regenerated  and  born 
again  who  are  proper  subjects  of  baptism  (§  116). 


82  THE  TECNOBAPTIST. 

§  160.  Mr.  C.  I  understand  Mr.  A.  as  now 
asserting  only  that  baptism  is  that  rite  which  marks 
and  ratifies  the  introduction  of  its  subject  into  the 
visible  kingdom  of  Christ ;  that,  in  this  ordinance, 
the  baptized  person  is  brought  into  a  new  state  or 
relation  to  Christ  and  his  sacred  family ;  and  that 
this  is  designated  in  the  Scriptures  by  the  term 
"  regeneration,"  being  intended  to  express  an  eccle- 
siastical birth,  —  that  is,  being  born  into  the  visible 
kingdom  of  the  Redeemer.  The  doctrine  of  bap- 
tismal regeneration,  when  it  goes  only  to  this  extent, 
is  less  pernicious  than  in  the  views  Avhich  have  been 
examined  ;  but,  even  thus  limited,  it  is  calculated 
to  mislead,  and,  of  course,  do  essential  mischief. 
The  least  objection  to  this  theory  is,  that  it  makes 
an  unauthorized  use  of  an  important  theological 
term,  such  as  would  give  a  new  aspect  to  those 
passages  of  Scripture  which  mention  either  regene- 
ration or  baptism  ;  making  some  unmeaning,  others 
ridiculous.  But  there  is  a  more  serious  objection. 
If  men  be  told  that  every  one  who  is  baptized  is 
"  born  of  God,"  "  born  of  the  Spirit,"  is  "  regene- 
rated by  the  Holy  Ghost,"  will  not  the  mass  of  man- 
kind, in  spite  of  every  precaution  and  explanation 
that  can  be  employed,  be  likely  to  mistake  on  a 
fundamental  point ;  to  imagine  that  the  disease  oi 
our  nature  is  trivial,  and  that  a  trivial  remedy  for 
it  will  answer  ;  to  lay  more  stress  than  they  ought 
upon  an  external  rite  ;  and  to  make  a  much  lower 


THE  TECNOBAPTIST.  83 

estimate  than  they  ought  of  the  nature  and  neces- 
sity of  that  holiness  without  which  no  man  shall  see 
the  Lord  ? 

§  161.  Mr.  A.  Regeneration,  in  its  highest  sense, 
is  a  new  inward  principle  of  spiritual  life,  which  our 
Lord  describes  when  he  says,  "  That  which  is  born  of 
the  Spirit  is  spirit ;  '*  which  St.  Peter  describes 
when  he  says,  that,  by  God's  promises,  we  are  "  par- 
takers of  the  divine  nature,"  —  that  we  are  "  born 
again,  not  of  corruptible  seed,  but  of  incorruptible ; " 
and  which  St.  John  describes  as  "  being  born,  not 
of  blood,  nor  of  the  will  of  the  flesh,  nor  of  the 
will  of  man,  but  of  God."  But  there  is  also  a  state 
of  spiritual  privilege  in  covenant-grace,  with  admis- 
sion to  church-privileges,  and  this  as  a  sign  and 
pledge  of  the  inward  principle  of  spiritual  life  ; 
"  the  washing  of  regeneration  "  before  "  the  renew- 
ing of  the  Holy  Ghost," — the  being  "born  of  water" 
before  being  "  born  of  the  Spirit."  In  this  view,  the 
church  of  Christ  admits  and  recognizes  the  regenera- 
tion of  the  baptized.  Regeneration,  as  an  entrance 
into  church-privileges,  always  accompanies  baptism, 
whatever  the  future  course  of  the  baptized  may  be. 

§  162.  Mr.  B.  Regeneration,  in  that  sense,  is 
baptism,  —  mere  baptism.  The  Christian's  descent 
from  Abraham  is  the  result  of  his  being  "  born  of 
the  Spirit ;  "  and,  if  our  premises  be  true,  as  a  sign 
and  pledge  of  that  descent,  he  is  visibly  "  born  of 
water."      In   this   sense,  baptism  is   regeneration, 


84  THE   TECNOBAPTIST. 

according  to  the  meaning  which  theologians  give 
to  the  word  "  regeneration  ;  "  or,  more  properly, 
baptism  is  a  new  birth.  This  I  assert  on  the  autho- 
rity of  the  Lord  Jesus,  who  says  we  "  must  be  born 
again  ;  "  and  explains  his  meaning  by  saying  we 
must  be  born,  not  only  "  of  the  Spirit,"  but  also  "  of 
water."  A  man  is  not  required  to  "  enter  a  second 
time  into  his  mother's  womb,  and  be  born  ; "  ^  but  he 
must  enter  into  water,  and  "  be  born  of  water,"  as 
a  symbol  that  he  has  been  "  born  of  the  Spirit," 
and  thus  become  a  child  of  Abraham,  an  heir  ac- 
cording to  the  promise.  If  this  spiritual  child  of 
Abraham  wilfully  omit  the  sign  of  his  regeneration, 
he  disobeys  a  positive  command  of  God,  as  much  as 
the  Jew  who  omitted  circumcision.  He  is  "  cut  off 
from  his  people,"  from  the  house  of  Israel,  from 
church-privileges,  just  as  "  the  uncircumcised  man- 
child  "  was  "  cut  off  from  his  people  ; "  for  "  he  hath 
broken  God's  covenant."^  Beyond  this  we  cannot 
say  that  there  will,  or  that  there  will  not,  be  other 
punishment :  nor  will  one,  who  has  the  spirit  of  obe- 
dience, stop  to  inquire  ;  but  he  will  implicitly  obey 
the  command  of  Him  who  gave  himself  a  ransom  for 
our  sins.  But  to  return.  As  Jesus  has  called  bap- 
tism being  "born  again,"  and  being  "born  of  water," 
it  may,  in  strictness  of  theological  phrase,  be  called 
a  regeneration  ;  and  regeneration,  in  this  sense,  is 
accompanied  by  admission  into  church-privileges. 

1  John  iii.  4.  2  Gen.  xvii.  14. 


THE   TECNOBAPTIST.  85 

§  163.  Mr.  A,  As  I  before  remarked,  it  is  in  this 
sense  that  the  church  admits  and  recognizes  the 
regeneration  of  the  baptized  (§  161). 

§  164.  Mr.  B.  If  that  be  all,  then  the  church 
admits  and  recognizes  only  the  very  obvious  truth, 
that  every  baptized  person  is  baptized.  But  is  this- 
the  sense  in  which  we  say  that  none  but  persons- 
regenerate  and  born  anew  are  proper  subjects  of 
baptism  ?  If  so,  we  involve  ourselves  in  the  same 
difficulty  already  noticed  (§§  141,  151)  ;  we  esta- 
blish that  no  person  is  a  proper  subject  of  baptism 
who  has  not  been  already  baptized.  But  it  is  not 
lawful  to  baptize  any  but  a  proper  subject ;  then 
none  can  be  baptized  the  first  time  so  as  to  be  made 
a  proper  subject.  And,  if  this  h}^ thesis  be  tested 
like  the  others,  it  will  be  found  to  lead  to  even 
greater  absurdity.  We  must  bear  in  mind,  that 
baptism  has  taken  the  place  of  circumcision,  — 
that  the  spiritual  descendant  of  Abraham  is  "  be^ 
gotten  through  the  gospel,"  and  "  boi'n  of  the 
Spirit." 

§  165.  Then  let  it  be  assumed,  that  though 
regeneration  and  the  new  birth,  in  the  highest 
sense,  do  not  take  place  at  the  time  of  baptism,  but 
only  after  one  is  "begotten  through  the  gospel," 
yet  in  the  sense  of  an  ecclesiastical  birth,  an 
admission  into  church-privileges,  they  accompany 
baptism,  and,  on  this  account,  baptism  should  be 
administered  to  infants.     It  follows,  as  a  necessary 

8 


86  THE   TECNOBAPTIST. 

consequence,  that  the  infant  that  is  baptized,  and 
lives  to  be  instructed  in  the  word  of  God  and  be- 
come a  true  Christian,  is  first  baptized ;  secondly, 
begotten  spiritually  ;  thirdly,  quickened  and  born 
spiritually.  Therefore,  judging  from  analogy,  under 
the  old  dispensation,  the  carnal  descendants  of 
Abraham  were,  firstly,  circumcised ;  secondly,  be- 
gotten carnally ;  thirdly,  quickened  and  born  car- 
nally ;  which  is  absurd.  Common  sense,  agreeing 
with  God's  command  and  church  history,  teaches 
us  that  they  could  not  be,  and  were  not,  circumcised, 
not  only  before  their  birth,  but  even  before  they 
were  begotten  ;  but  that,  on  the  contrary,  they  were, 
firstly,  begotten  carnally  ;  secondly,  quickened  and 
born  carnally ;  and,  thirdly,  circumcised.  There- 
fore, by  analogy,  we  infer  that  the  spiritual  descend- 
ants of  Abraham  must  be,  firstly,  begotten  spiritually, 
"  through  the  gospel ;  "  secondly,  quickened  and 
born  spiritually  ;  and,  thirdly,  baptized.  This  is 
consistent  and  reasonable  ;  and,  if  baptism  be  now 
all  that  circumcision  was  under  the  old  dispensa- 
tion, this  is  the  true  doctrine. 

§  166.  Again  :  in  this  sense,  a  person  is  "  born 
of  water "  only.  Then  the  minister,  in  giving 
thanks,  should  say,  "  We  yield  thee  hearty  thanks, 
most  merciful  God,  that  it  has  pleased  thee  to 
regenerate  this  infant,"  not  "  with  thy  Holy  Spirit," 
but  "  with  water."  This  water-regeneration  is  not 
our  means  of  descent  from  Abraham,  but  only  the 


THE   TECNOBAPTIST.  87 

mark  of  it.  We  must  distinguish  between  this  and 
the  spiritual  regeneration.  Which  of  the  two  is  it 
that  brings  us  into  spiritual  life,  makes  us  children 
of  God,  the  seed  of  Abraham  ?  Not  the  water- 
regeneration  ;  else  Jesus  would  have  said,  "  That 
which  is  born  of  the  water  is  spirit."  But  it  is  the 
spiritual  regeneration  ;  for  Jesus  said,  "  That  which 
is  born  of  the  Spirit  is  spirit."  It  is  supposed  by 
many  that  spiritual  regeneration  is  sometimes  spoken 
of  as  a  baptism  of  the  Spirit.  If  this  be  so,  it  may 
be  called  a  baptism  with  the  same  degree  of  pro- 
priety as  baptism  may  be  called  a  regeneration. 
Yet  it  is  more  usual  and  more  convenient  to  appro- 
priate the  name  of  ''baptism"  to  the  water-birth,  and 
"regeneration"  to  the  spiritual  birth,  or  the  quicken- 
ing influence  of  the  Spirit.  When  we  use  the  word 
"  regenerate  "  or  "  regeneration,"  unless  by  express 
terms  or  necessary  implication  we  limit  our  meaning 
to  the  water-birth,  we  must  be  understood  to  mean 
spiritual  regeneration,  —  not  the  sign,  but  the  thing 
signified.  There  is  no  utility  in  the  other  use  of 
the  word  ;  and  it  creates  confusion  and  obscurity. 
Let  us  confine  its  meaning,  therefore,  to  that  spirit- 
ual regeneration  by  which  alone  we  can  attain  to 
spiritual  life.  Persons  who  are  not  regenerate,  in 
this  sense,  are  to  the  kingdom  of  God  as  the  unborn 
babe  is  to  the  civil  state  or  kingdom  in  which  its 
parents  reside. 

§  16T.     Mr.  C.   The  child  is  not  till  it  be  gene- 


88  THE   TECNOBAPTIST. 

rate,  and  the  man  has  no  being  in  grace  till  he  be 
regenerate. 

§  168.  Mr.  B.  And  the  man  mnst  have  a  being, 
an  existence,  in  relation  to  the  church,  before  the 
church  can  properly  administer  to  him  the  ordi- 
nances usually  called  *'  sacraments."  As  a  child 
was  not  permitted  to  be  circumcised,  under  the  old 
dispensation,  until  there  could  be  no  doubt  that  he 
was  born  and  living ;  so  must  we  have  reasonable 
evidence  that  the  Christian  is  regenerate,  before  we 
give  him  "  the  washing  of  regeneration."  That  his 
parents  are  believers  does  not  entitle  him  to  baptism, 
unless  the  faith  of  the  parent  constitutes  the  regene- 
ration of  the  child  ;  which  no  one  will  assert. 

§  169.  Mr.  A.  To  carry  out  your  analogy  per- 
fectly, one  must  be  baptized  on  the  eighth  day  after 
the  spiritual  birth ;  for  the  infant  was  circumcised 
on  the  eighth  day  after  the  carnal  birth.  And  how 
is  one  to  tell  the  exact  date  of  his  spiritual  birth  ? 

§  170.  Mr.  B.  A  similar  question  seems  to  have 
arisen  in  the  middle  of  the  third  century :  but  the 
analogy  applied  to  baptism  was  not  extended  to 
the  spiritual  birth ;  in  which  respect,  it  was  defec- 
tive. The  inquiry  was  made  of  the  council  held  at 
Carthage,  A.D.  250,  whether  infants  should  be  bap- 
tized before  the  eighth  day  after  birth.  The  decision 
was,  "  that  the  mercy  and  grace  of  God  are  not  to  be 
denied  to  any  one  so  soon  as  born."  The  response 
(to  say  nothing  of  the  terms  in  which  it  is  couched) 


THE   TECNOBAPTIST.  89 

would  have  been  very  appropriate,  had  the  inquiry 
been  concerning  such  "  new-born  babes "  as  the 
Apostle  Peter  exhorts  to  "  desire  the  sincere  milk  of 
the  word,  that  they  may  grow  thereby."  ^  That  we 
are  not  confined  to  the  eighth  day,  or  any  other 
specific  time,  is  evident  from  the  practice  of  the 
apostles.  The  baptism  of  the  eunuch  by  Philip ; 
of  Lydia  and  her  household,  and  of  the  Philippiaii 
jailer  and  all  his,  by  Paul  and  Silas ;  and  of  Corne- 
lius, and  his  kinsmen  and  near  friends,  at  the  com- 
mand of  Peter,  —  all  took  place  immediately  after 
they  turned  to  Christ.  Some  of  these  were  pre- 
viously godly  and  righteous  persons ;  but  there  is  a 
remarkable  example  in  which  many  wicked  persons 
were  converted,  and  forthwith  baptized.  Soon  after 
the  resurrection  of  the  Redeemer,  Peter  preached, 
not  to  godly  and  righteous  men,  but  to  the  murder- 
ers of  the  Lord,  whom  they  had  taken  but  a  short 
time  before,  "  and  by  wicked  hands  had  crucified 
and  slain."  When  their  hearts  were  penetrated, 
they  asked,  "  What  shall  we  do  ?  "  Peter  told  them 
to  repent,  and  be  baptized  ;  and  there  were  added  to 
the  church,  the  same  day,  about  three  thousand 
souls.  It  is  believed  that  all  these  were  baptized 
that  day.  Here,  then,  is  sufficient  warrant  for  bap- 
tizing without  delay  those  who  are  regenerate. 

§  171.     Mr.  A.   By  chance,  I  have  met  with  an- 
other theory  of  regeneration,  which  is  advocated  by 

11  Pet.  ii.  2. 

8* 


90  THE   TECNOBAPTIST. 

a  certain  heretical  sect ;  yet  it  may  not  be  amiss  to 
consider  it  in  this  connection.  They  urge  that  the 
words  of  Jesus,  "  Ye  must  be  born  again,"  mean 
that  we  must  be  born,  not  again  and  again,  not 
twice  or  thrice,  but  once  again  ;  yet  this  one  new 
birth  must  be  "  of  water  and  the  Spirit ;  "  — that 
water-baptism  is  the  act  of  the  church,  through  her 
agent  the  baptizer ;  but  this  baptism  alone  is  not 
the  new  birth,  neither  is  being  "  born  of  the  Spirit " 
alone  ;  but  the  Christian  must  be  "  born  of  water 
and  the  Spirit,"  just  as  a  child,  by  one  carnal  birth, 
is  born  of  its  mother  and  its  father.  He  must  be 
begotten  by  the  Spirit  "  with  the  word  of  truth," 
the  incorruptible  seed,  and  be  born  of  the  water. 
The  seed,  God's  word,  which  has  been  given  by 
inspiration  of  the  Spirit,  is  deposited  in  the  heart ; 
-the  Spirit  quickeneth ;  ^  and  baptism  is  a  symbolic 
birth,  by  which  the  church  becomes  the  Christian's 
mother,  and  God  his  father. 

§  172.  Mr.  B.  All  my  early  religious  impres- 
sions having  been  received  from  the  Methodist, 
Episcopalian,  and  Presbyterian  denominations,  I 
.am  strongly  inclined  to  the  opinion,  that  Christians 
;are  spoken  of  as  begotten  by,  and  as  born  of,  the 
Spirit ;  that  baptism  is  a  sign  of  the  spiritual  rege- 
neration and  rebirth,  and  that  it  has  taken  the 
place  of  circumcision.  But  so  many  of  my  early 
impressions    have    melted   away   like    snow,  when 

1  John  vi.  63. 


THE   TECNOBAPTIST.  91 

brought  into  the  sunlight  of  the  word  of  God,  that 
I  do  not  feel  very  secure  in  any  of  my  opinions  to 
which  I  have  not  applied  the  gospel  test.  I  do  not 
feel  at  liberty  to  pronounce  any  denomination  of 
Christians  heretical,  till  I  have  received  accurate 
information  as  to  their  doctrines,  considered  the 
reasoning  by  which  they  attempt  to  support  them, 
and  found  them  at  variance  with  the  word  of  truth. 
The  theory  which  you  mention  may  possibly  be 
correct ;  but  an  examination  of  its  merits  is  foreign 
to  our  present  object,  nor  have  I  ability  to  discuss 
a  subject  so  abstruse.  I  must  content  myself  with 
considering  its  bearing  on  the  question  of  infant- 
baptism.  It  plainly  involves  the  absurdities  of  the 
first  and  second  hypotheses,  if  we  are  to  regard  bap- 
tism as  taking  the  place  of  the  carnal  birth  and  also 
of  circumcision. 

§  173.  Mr.  A.  But  those  who  hold  this  doctrine 
discard  the  idea,  that  baptism  takes  the  place  of 
circumcision. 

§  174.  Mr.  B.  And  thus  they  escape,  at  least, 
the  absurdities  which  have  been  pointed  out  as  fol- 
lowing from  the  first  and  second  hypotheses  (§§  141- 
144, 151-153).  Their  doctrine  conflicts  but  slightly, 
and  in  no  essential  part,  with  the  conclusion  which 
we  have  reached.  Generation,  in  the  most  compre- 
hensive sense  given  to  it  by  medical  science,  in- 
cludes not  only  birth,  but  lactation.  We,  however, 
have  used  it,  in  a  more  limited  sense,  to  signify  the 


92  THE   TECNOBAPTIST. 

begetting,  quickening,  and  complete  formation,  of  an 
infant  previous  to  its  birth  ;  and,  of  course,  regene- 
ration is  employed  in  an  analogous  sense.  The  doc- 
trine under  consideration,  therefore,  establishes  our 
conclusion,  if  we  omit  the  words  "  and  born  again," 
thus :  "  Those  persons,  and  none  other,  who  have 
been  regenerated,  .  .  .  are  proper  subjects  of  bap- 
tism" (§  116).  Our  argument  can  lose  none  of  its 
force  by  such  a  change.  Their  doctrine  makes  bap- 
tism the  Christian's  birth,  while  our  conclusion 
recognizes  it  as  his  circumcision.  If  baptism  be 
the  new  birth,  regeneration  must  go  before  rebirth, 
since  generation  goes  before  birth  :  if  baptism  be 
Christian  circumcision,  both  regeneration  and  re- 
birth must  go  before  this  circumcision,  since  gene- 
ration and  birth  went  before  Jewish  circumcision. 
Thus  either  view  precludes  the  possibility  of  admit- 
ting infants  to  baptism  :  for,  before  they  are  born  of 
water,  they  must  be  begotten  with  the  incorruptible 
seed,  the  word  of  God ;  and  carnal  infants  are  inca- 
pable of  being  thus  begotten.  But  I  anticipate. 
Without  discussing  whether  this  last  theory  be  right 
or  wrong,  we  may  so  modify  our  conclusion  as  to 
suit  every  aspect  of  the  subject.  Thus  :  Regenerate 
persons,  and  none  other,  are  proper  subjects  of 
baptism. 

§  175.  Here  we  may  drop  this  theory  of  the  new 
birth,  and  return  to  our  former  positions.  Then, 
assuming  once  more  that  all  our  former  positions 


THE   TECNOBAPTIST. 


93 


are  true,  we  are  now  prepared  to  trace  correctly  the 
analogy  between  the  two  churches,  and  see  how 
beautifully  they  harmonize.  We  agree  that  they 
are  the  same  church,  but  that  a  reformation  has 
taken  place,  by  which  carnality  has  been  discarded, 
and  spirituality  substituted.  This  change  will  be 
found  to  run  through  the  whole  parallel.     Thus  :  — 


In  the  Old-  Testament  church. 

1.  The  carnal  descendants  of 
Abraham  were  the  chosen  peo- 
ple of  God. 

2.  The  carnal  descendants 
were  begotten  with  carnal  and 
corruptible  seed. 

3.  The  carnal  descendants 
were  carnally  generated,  and 
entered  the  kingdom  of  God,  or 
church,  by  a  carnal  birth. 

4.  The  outward  sign  of  mem- 
bership was  circumcision,  —  a 
carnal  ordinance,  performed  by 
cutting  the  flesh  of  the  subject. 

5.  The  carnal  descendants 
were  required  to  be  circumcised, 
not  before  nor  at,  but  after,  their 
carnal  birth. 


In  the  New -Testament  church. 

1.  The  spiritual  descendants 
of  Abraham  are  the  chosen  peo- 
ple of  God. 

2.  The  spiritual  descendants 
are  begotten  with  spiritual  and 
incorruptible  seed. 

3.  Uhe  spiritual  descendants 
are  spiritually  regenerated,  and 
enter  the  kingdom  of  God,  or 
church,  by  a  spiritual  birth. 

4.  The  outward  sign  of  mem- 
bership is  baptism,  performed 
with  water,  which  you  believe 
to  be  an  emblem  of  the  Spirit. 

5.  The  spiritual  descendants 
should  be  baptized,  not  before 
nor  at,  but  after,  their  spiritual 
birth. 


§  176.  Here  all  is  symmetry  and  consistency  ; 
but  they  are  marred  if  we  retain  the  idea  that  bap- 
tism has  taken  the  place  of  circumcision,  yet  insert 
that  baptism  is  to  the  infant  now  what  carnal  birth 
was  formerly  in  regard  to  the  church,  or  that  the 
spiritual  descendants  of  Abraham  should  be  baptized 


94  THE   TECNOBAPTIST. 

before,  or  at  the  time  of,  their  spiritual  birth.  We 
have  now  seen  the  absurdities  into  which,  from  our 
premises,  we  will  be  led,  by  either  the  doctrine 
that  infants  should  be  baptized  before  regeneration 
(§§  66 J  67,  165),  or  the  doctrine  of  baptismal  re- 
generation, however  modified  (§§  140-168).  Here 
we  might  close  the  argument.  Even  the  doctrine 
of  baptismal  regeneration  could  not  change  the 
result,  since  it  would  involve  the  absurdity  of  mak- 
ing baptism  happen  at  the  same  time  with  its  pre- 
requisite. But  let  us  go  farther,  and  inquire.  Are 
infants,  as  God  has  been  pleased  to  create  them, 
capable  of  being  regenerated  ;  that  is,  can  they  be 
regenerate  persons  ?  We  cannot  doubt  the  power 
of  God  so  to  change  the  constitution  of  things  as  to 
regenerate  any  person,  old  or  young,  just  as  he  has 
power  to  enable  any  one  to  convert  water  into  wine  ; 
but,  as  he  has  actually  constituted  infancy,  and  as 
he  has  actually  ordained  regeneration,  are  infants 
capable  of  regeneration  ?  To  reach  this  point,  let 
us  inquire  what  is  regeneration. 

§  177.  Mr.  C,  It  is  described  in  the  Sacred 
Scripture  as  a  new  birth,  a  new  creation,  a  resur- 
rection from  the  dead.  These  are  emphatic  ex- 
pressions, and  convey  the  idea  of  a  marvellous 
transformation.  Such,  in  truth,  it  is,  evincing  in 
every  feature  the  mighty  power  of  God.  Spiritual 
things  are  discerned  by  a  heart  once  blind  and 
averse  to  them.     Love  to  God  succeeds  to  enmity ; 


THE'TECNOBAPTIST.  95 

holy  habits  are  substituted  for  habits  earthly,  sen- 
sual, devilish ;  in  a  word,  old  things  pass  away,  and 
all  things  become  new. 

§  178.  Mr.  B.  The  Rev.  Eichard  Watson,  the 
great  theologian  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  church, 
says,  "  It  will  not  bear  disputing  whether  regenera- 
tion begins  with  repentance."  Again :  "  Conviction 
of  the  evil  and  danger  of  an  unregenerate  state 
must  first  be  felt.  From  this  arises  an  altered  view 
of  things,"  &c.  Such  are  some  of  the  antecedents 
of  regeneration.  The  same  theologian  gives  a  de- 
scription of  regeneration  itself,  which  shows  that 
infants  are  not  capable  of  it.  The  passages  are  too 
long  to  read  at  present.^  It  is  so  described  also  in 
Boston's  ''  Fourfold  State,"  and  several  other  works, 
published  by  the  Presbyterian  Board  of  Publication. 
But  one  of  our  agreed  truths  is  decisive  of  this 
point ;  for  it  is,  that  "  regeneration  is  the  work  of 
the  Spirit  of  God,  wrought  by  means  of  his  word  " 
(§  48).  And  we  know  that  God  has  so  created 
man,  that  in  infancy  the  word  of  God  can  have  no 
effect  upon  him,  because  of  the  feebleness  of  his 
intellect. 

§  179.  Mr.  A.  I  have  already  admitted,  that 
infants  are  not  capable  of  regeneration  in  that  high 
sense  in  which  you  now  use  the  term  (§§  158, 161)  ; 
and  that,  indeed,  is  the  only  sense  in  which  we  can 

1  Watson's  "  Institutes,"  vol.  ii.  part  ii.  chap.  18,  23,  24,  pp.  71,  72, 
253,  254,  267,  268. 


96  THE    TECNOBAPTIST. 

understand  the  term  in  our  premises  (§§  41,  48), 
and  consequently  the  only  true  sense  of  it  in  our 
conclusion  (§§  116,  174). 

§  180.  Mr.  C.  Then  we  must  now  conclude  that 
infants  cannot  be  regenerate  persons. 

§  181.  Mr.  A.  If  so,  we  have  reached  the  solu- 
tion of  our  first  problem  (§  55^  ;  and  it  is  very 
different  from  what  I  expected.  I  acknowledge 
myself  unable,  at  present,  to  escape  the  conclusion 
to  which  our  inquiry  leads  us  ;  yet  I  would  not  be 
understood  as  abandoning  my  former  views.  I  must 
have  time  to  review  our  chain  of  argument,  and  to 
ponder  the  subject  in  all  its  phases.  With  this 
explanation,  I  will  proceed  to  apply  the  truth,  if 
truth  it  be,  which  we  last  reached.  The  syllogism 
will  stand  thus  :  Regenerate  persons,  and  none 
other,  are  proper  subjects  of  baptism  (§§  116,  174). 
Infants  cannot  be  regenerate  persons  (§  180)  ; 
therefore  infants  cannot  be  proper  subjects  of  bap- 
tism. In  other  words,  infant-baptism  is  not  a  divine 
institution.     (See  §  55.) 

§182.  Mr.C.  My  friends,  the  thought  of  sever- 
ing parents  from  their  offspring  in  regard  to  the 
most  interesting  relations  in  which  it  has  pleased 
God,  in  his  adorable  providence,  to  place  them,  is 
equally  repugnant  to  Christian  feeling  and  to  natu- 
ral law.  The  voice  of  nature  is  lifted  up,  and  pleads 
most  powerfully  in  our  cause.  The  close  and  en- 
dearing connection  between  parents  and  their  chil- 


THE   TECxNOBAPTIST.  97 

dren  affords  a  strong  argument  in  favor  of  the 
church  membership  of  tlie  infant  seed  of  believers. 
§  183.  Mr.  B.  The  very  strongest  that  can  be 
adduced ;  indeed,  I  am  satisfied,  the  main  support 
of  infant-baptism.  It  is  not  so  properly  an  argu- 
ment as  a  strong  persuasion  for  parents  to  believe 
in  the  church  membersliip  of  their  children,  and  for 
children  to  believe  that  their  parents  did  right  in 
having  them  baptized  in  infancy,  and  therefore- 
refuse  to  be  baptized  when  they  become  proper 
subjects.  It  belongs  to  the  domain  of  rhetoric,  not 
of  logic.  It  addresses  itself,  not  to  the  reason,  but 
to  the  hearts,  of  parents  and  children,  and  thus 
leads  many  astray.  The  Saviour  tells  us,  that  he 
who  loveth  father  or  mother,  son  or  daughter,  more- 
than  him,  is  not  worthy  of  him.^  Parental  affection 
amounts  to  impiety,  to  a  degree  of  unbelief,  when 
it  makes  parents  unwilling  to  trust  their  infants  to 
the  loving-kindness  of  God.  If  our  argument  be 
correct,  it  has  not  "  pleased  God,  in  his  adorable 
providence,"  to  place  parents  and  children  in  the 
relation  of  church  membership,  till  both  be  regene- 
rate. It  is  He  who  severs  them  "  in  regard  to  this 
interesting  relation  ;  "  and  to  what  "  natural  law  " 
is  it  "repugnant"?  What  natural  law  is  there  to 
which  the  God  of  nature  and  of  nature's  law  shall 
be  subjected  ?  Shall  we  believe,  with  Spinoza,  that 
God  himself  is  bound  by  certain  immutable  laws  ? 

1  Matt.  X.  37,  38. 
9 


98  THE   TECNOBAPTIST. 

and  shall  we  decide  that  one  of  those  immutable 
laws  is,  that  parents  shall  not  be  severed  from  their 
offspring  in  regard  to  the  relation  of  church  mem- 
bership ?  There  is,  indeed,  a  "  natural  law "  in 
every  heart,  "  warring  against  the  law  "  by  which 
"  Christian  feeling  "  should  be  regulated  ;  ^  and 
such  is  that  parental  affection  which  so  far  oversteps 
the  humility  of  Christian  faith  as  to  desire  to  do 
more  and  better  for  children  than  He  will  do  who 
said,  "  Suffer  little  children  to  come  unto  me." 
When  God  has  been  so  good  as  to  call  the  parent, 
and  make  him  nigh  by  the  blood  of  Christ,  and  to 
offer  the  like  grace  to  his  children  when  they  shall 
be  able  to  accept  it,  is  it  yet  repugnant  to  the  feel- 
ings of  that  parent  that  God  will  not  depart  from 
his  established  course  of  procedure,  and  bring  the 
children  now  into  the  church,  notwithstanding  they 
are  not  qualified  ?  It  is  very  unchristian  feeling 
which  will  murmur  against  the  will  of  God,  instead 
of  saying,  "  Father,  not  as  I  will,  but  as  thou  wilt." 
The  "  voice  of  nature  "  is  often  lifted  up  against  the 
voice  of  grace,  —  often  against  the  will  of  God.  In 
the  heart  of  faithful  Abraham,  it  cried  aloud  for 
Ishmael ;  in  the  heart  of  Isaac,  for  Esau.  But  the 
cry  availed  nothing  ;  for  God  would  not  accept 
^'  the  children  of  the  flesh  "  to  be  "  the  children  of 

1  "I  delight  in  the  law  of  God,  after  the  inward  man;  but  I  see 
another  law  in  my  members,  warring  against  the  law  of  my  mind,  and 
bringing  me  into  captivity  to  the  law  of  sin  which  is  in  my  members."  — 
Rom.  vii.  23. 


THE   TECNOBAPTIST.  99 

God."     As  little  will  the  voice  of  nature  now  avail 
against  the  will  of  nature's  God. 

§  184.  Mr.  C.  Children,  in  virtue  of  their  birth, 
are  plenary  citizens  of  the  State  in  which  their  pa- 
rents reside  at  the  time  of  their  birth.  Why  should 
this  great  principle  be  set  aside  in  the  church  of 
God  ?  Surely  it  is  not  more  obvious  or  powerful  in 
nature  than  in  grace. 

§  185.  Mr.  B.  Why  should  this  great  principle 
be  set  aside  in  the  Masonic  fraternity  ?  Children 
are  not,  in  virtue  of  their  birth,  members  of  the 
lodge  of  which  their  fathers  are  members  at  the  time 
of  their  birth.  Why  not  ?  Because,  according  to 
the  laws  regulating  the  Masonic  institution,  they 
must  attain  an  age  of  legal  responsibility,  and 
possess  certain  qualifications,  before  they  can  be 
admitted  to  membership.  And  so,  according  to  the 
laws  regulating  the  Christian  institution,  they  must 
attain  an  age  of  moral  responsibility,  and  possess 
certain  qualifications,  before  they  can  be  admitted 
to  membership.  A  State  usually  receives  as  citi- 
zens those  who  are  born  within  certain  geographical 
limits  ;  and,  when  the  church  was  a  State  among  the 
nations  of  earth,  your  "  great  principle  "  operated 
in  the  church.  Yet  this  is  a  mere  conventional  rule, 
and  not  a  principle  founded  "  in  nature,"  as  you 
intimate  ;  and  the  true  church  has  no  geographical 
limits.  We  cannot  say  of  it,  '■'-  Lo  here !  or,  Lo  there ! 
for,  behold,  the  kingdom  of  God  is  within  you." 


100  THE   TECNOBAPTIST. 

We  all  acknowledge  tlie  change  in  the  church,  dis- 
carding the  carnal,  and  substituting  the  spiritual, 
seed  of  Abraham.  According  to  your  theory,  it 
is  a  change  without  a  difference  ;  for  the  child  of 
the  flesh  is  still  born  into  the  church.  Again  :  in  the 
early  part  of  our  conversation,  you  remarked  that 
"  there  was  a  time  when  Christ's  people  were  sepa- 
rate from  him,  and  afterwards  there  is  a  time  when 
they  are  found  in  union  with  him.  Then  it  follows, 
of  course,  that  there  was  a  time,  with  every  one  of 
them,  when  they  were  brought  into  union  with 
Christ"  (§  44).  If  infants,  "in  virtue  of  their 
birth,"  be  members  of  the  church,  which  is  "  the 
body  of  Christ,"^  the  moment  they  are  born  is  the 
time  when  first  "  they  are  found  in  union  with  him." 
Then  when  were  they  "  separate  from  him  "  ?  You 
say  "  the  child  is  not  till  it  be  generate  "  (§  167)  ; 
and  that  which  is  not,  which  does  not  exist,  cannot 
be  either  separate  from  Christ,  or  in  union  with 
him.  You  say  that  "  regeneration  is  inseparably 
connected  with  the  union  of  the  believer  with 
Christ "  (§  44).  Is  it  also  connected  with  the  union 
of  the  infant  with  Clirist  ?  Is  the  infant  at  the 
same  moment  both  born,  and  "  born  again  "  ?  That 
cannot  be  ;  for  the  word  "  again  "  implies  that  the 
one  birth  happens  after  the  other  birth.  Moreover, 
we  have  seen  that  infants  cannot  be  regenerate 
(§  180).     If,  however,  the  child  be  not  born  again, 

1  1  Cor.  xii.  27.   Col.  i.  18,  &c. 


THE   TECNOBAPTIST.  101 

yet  we  say  it  is  united  to  Christ,  being  a  member  of 
liis  body,  the  church,  "  we  make  him  a  liar  ;  "  for 
he  tells  us,  except  one  be  born  again,  he  cannot 
enter  his  kingdom,  or  church.  Lastly,  even  in  the 
civil  state,  the  child  is  not  a  citizen  before  it  is  born  ; 
and,  according  to  your  own  statement  (§  167),  those 
who  have  only  been  born  of  the  flesh,  and  not  born 
again  of  the  Spirit,  are  to  the  church  as  one  unborn 
is  to  the  State,  —  having  no  being,  no  existence, 
and  hence  incapable  of  being  citizens  of  the  king- 
dom, or  church. 

§  186.  Mr.  C.  The  unborn  babe  has  certain 
capacities  in  the  State.  Property  may  be  given  or 
bequeathed  to  it  on  condition  of  its  birth. 

§  187.  31r.  B.  And  here  tlie  analogy  is  striking. 
Unregenerate  persons  have  similar  capacities.  An 
estate  has  been  devised  to  all  such  persons  "  on  con- 
dition of  their  birth,"  —  their  spiritual  birth,  —  an 
inheritance  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  which  they 
are  not  capable  of  receiving  in  their  unregenerate 
state.  Until  their  spiritual  birth,  though  the  parent 
be  in  the  church,  the  children  are  not. 

§  188.  Mr.  C.  It  is  not  so  in  any  other  society 
that  the  great  moral  Governor  of  the  world  ever 
formed.  The  analogies  which  pervade  all  the  works 
and  dispensations  of  God  are  too  uniform  and  strik- 
ing to  be  disregarded  in  an  inquiry  like  the  present. 
Can  it  be,  that,  when  the  stem  is  in  the  church,  the 
branch  is  out  of  it  ? 


102  THE   TECNOBAPTIST. 

§  189.  Mr.  B.  I  am  not  aware  of  "  any  other 
society  that  the  great  moral  Governor  of  the  world 
ever  formed ; "  unless  you  abandon  your  opinion, 
that  the  church  is  now  the  same  as  under  the  old  dis- 
pensation. If  by  "  other  society  "  you  refer  to  the 
Jewish  church,  the  analogy  furnished  by  that  church 
has  been  found  to  favor  my  view.  As  "  the  analo- 
gies which  pervade  the  works  and  dispensations  of 
God  are  uniform,"  this  one  analogy  ought  to  have 
been  sufficient.  But  you  next  attack  me  with  an 
analogy  derived  from  the  State  iji  which  an  infant 
is  born  (§  184).  This  analogy  also  favors  my  view  ; 
so  you  throw  me  at  large  upon  "  the  analogies  which 
pervade  all  the  works  and  dispensations  of  God.'* 
Let  us  first  notice  a  few  of  his  dispensations  which 
have  been  already  alluded  to  (§  183).  "  The  voice 
of  nature  "  cried  aloud  for  Ishmael ;  and  it  was 
"  very  grievous  in  Abraham's  sight "  that  his  first- 
born could  not  "  be  heir  with  Isaac."  Whom  has 
God  honored  as  he  did  Abraham  ?  Who  else  has 
been  recognized  as  "  the  friend  of  God  "  ?  Yet  God 
preferred  Isaac  ;  and  Ishmael  was  never  in  the 
kingdom  of  God  on  earth.  Again  :  ''•  the  voice  of 
nature  "  pleaded  in  Isaac's  heart  for  Esau,  his  first- 
born and  best-beloved  ;  yet  Esau  never  entered  the 
.kingdom.^     The  unregenerate  child  of  the  church 

1  "  Paul  adduces  illustrations  of  the  principle  of  selection  from  the 
history  of  the  patriarchs  themselves;  from  Abraham's  children;  and 
even  from  Esau  and  Jacob,  whose  parentage,  unlike  that  of  Isaac 
and  Ishmael,  was  the  same  on  both  sides.     The  general  principle  is  then 


THE   TECNOBAPTIST.  103 

member  is  his  first-born,  his  Ishmael,  his  Esau,  but 
is  not  the  child  of  promise.  He  should  strive  to  be- 
come his  spiritual  parent,  —  to  beget  him  "  through 
the  gospel ;  "  and  then  the  child,  having  become  "  a 
new  creature,"  will  be  his  Isaac,  his  Jacob,  the  child 
of  promise.  It  is  on  all  sides  admitted,  that  Isaac  is 
a  type  of  the  spiritual  seed  ;  Ishmael,  of  the  carnal : 
so  also  Esau  is  a  type  of  the  unregenerate ;  and 
Jacob,  of  the  regenerate.  Thus  I  have  more  minute- 
ly traced  these  analogies  of  "  the  dispensations  of 
God,"  and  find  that  they  support  my  opinion.  Next 
as  to  ''  the  analogies  which  pervade  all  the  works  of 
God."  In  considering  these,  I  will  confine  myself 
to  the  example  which  you  suggest,  —  the  tree.  You 
ask,  "  Can  it  be,  that,  when  the  stem  is  in  the 
church,  the  branch  is  out  of  it  ?  "  This  not  only 
can  be,  but  such  is  exactly  the  model  on  which  the 
church  itself  is  constructed,  according  to  the  de- 
scription of  it  which  you  and  Mr.  A.  a  while  ago  bor- 
rowed with  much  approbation  from  the  Apostle  Paul 
(§§  33,  34).  He  selected  the  same  work  of  God  to 
illustrate,  by  analogy,  how  the  stem  is  in  the  church, 
while  "  the  natural  branches,"  the  unbelieving  Jews, 
are  out  of  it,  —  broken  off,  as  he  expresses  it. 

announced  in  all  its  latitude ;  viz.,  that  God  chooses  as  objects  of  spiritual 
mercy  whomsoever  he  wills.  Hence  he  is  perfectly  just  in  rejecting  the 
great  mass  of  the  Jewish  people,  and  in  selecting  the  body  of  the  Gen- 
tilea  in  their  stead,  especially  as  his  promises  were  only  intended  for  the 
spiritual  children  of  Abraham."  —  An  Introduction  to  the  New  Testa- 
ment, by  fcjamuel  Davidson,  D.D.  LL.D.,  vol.  ii.  p.  204;  on  Rom.  ix. 
6-13. 


104  THE   TECNOBAPTIST. 

§  190.  Mr.  C.  Yes  ;  but  he  tells  us  they  were 
broken  off  "  because  of  unbelief."  They  were,  we 
may  say,  excommunicated  ;  as  the  offspring  of  mem- 
bers may  now  be,  if  they  indulge  in  a  course  of 
error,  immorality,  or  negligence. 

§  191.  Mr.  B.  Yery  true  ;  yet  they  were  not  the 
less  branches,  out  of  the  church,  while  the  stem  was 
in  it ;  and  so  are  the  excommunicants  of  whom  you 
speak ;  which  shows  that  this  can  be.  Moreover, 
while  Paul  says  of  the  Jews,  that  ^'  because  of  un- 
belief they  were  broken  off,"  does  he  add  that  Chris- 
tians stand  by  carnal  descent  from  believing  parents  ? 
Not  so.  He  says, ''  And  thou  standest  by  faith."  ^ 
How,  then,  do  infants  stand,  who  have  not  faith  ? 

§  192.  Mr.  a  By  faith  also,  —  the  faith  of  their 
parents. 

§  193.  Mr.  B.  How  can  parental,  instead  of 
personal,  faith  avail  them  more  than  it  availed  the 
Jews,  whose  parents  were  true  believers,  enjoying 
the  like  spiritual  blessings  as  Christians,  according 
to  your  recent  assertion  ?  (§  91.) 

§  194.  Mr.  A.  The  infants  have  not  arrived  at 
the  period  when  it  is  possible  to  believe ;  therefore 
faith  is  not  required  of  them. 

§  195.  Mr.  B.  Yery  true.  Neither  have  they 
arrived  at  the  period  when  it  is  possible  to  obey  ; 
therefore  obedience  is  not  required  of  them, —  qbe- 
dience  to  the  command,  "  Be  baptized;"  a  command 

1  Eom.  xi.  20. 


THE  TECNOBAPTIST.  105 

which  cannot  be  obeyed  without  some  active  agency 
on  the  part  of  the  subject.  Well,  we  see  that  the 
church  itself  is  a  perpetual  monument  and  wit- 
ness that  the  stem  may  be  in  the  church,  and  the 
branch  out  of  it.  The  history  of  the  Old-Testament 
church  shows  the  same.  Abraham  was  in  ;  Ishmael, 
the  children  of  Keturah,  and  their  descendants, 
were  out:  for  "the  children  of  the  flesh,  —  these 
are  not  the  children  of  God."  Isaac  was  in  the 
church :  Esau  and  the  Edomites  were  out  of  it. 
The  history  of  the  New-Testament  church  shows 
the  same.  It  sometimes  happens,  even  in  Christian 
communities,  that  the  parents  of  infidel  or  uncon- 
verted adults  are  converted ;  and  in  Pagan  lands  it 
frequently  occurs.  Thus  the  stem  is  in,  and  the 
branch  out  of,  the  church.  The  same  model  teaches 
that  the  branch  may  be  in,  and  the  stem  out ;  for 
the  wild  olive-branches  are  cut  away  from  their 
native  stem,  and  grafted  into  the  stem  of  the  good 
olive-tree.  Experience  accords  with  this  also.  The 
children  of  Pagans,  infidels,  and  unconverted  per- 
sons, are  often  brought  into  the  church  by  regene- 
ration, while  the  parents  remain  in  outer  darkness. 
Thus  the  branch  is  in  the  church,  and  the  stem  out 
of  it ;  which  is  no  less  strange  than  that  the  stem 
should  be  in,  and  the  branch  out. 

§  196.  Mr.  C.  Can  it  be,  that,  when  the  parent 
is  within  the  visible  kingdom  of  the  Redeemer,  his 
offspring,  bone  of  his  bone  and  flesh  of  his  flesh, 
have  no  connection  with  it  ? 


106  THE   TECNOBAPTIST. 

§  197.  Mr.  B.  Your  inquiry  has  been  already 
answered ;  and  it  contains  within  itself  the  reason  for 
the  answer.  You  say  well,  "  bone  of  his  bone,  and 
flesh  of  his  flesh."  They  are  indeed  flesh,  and  of 
his  flesh ;  and,  for  this  very  reason,  have  no  connec- 
tion with  the  kingdom  of  God.  "  That  which  is 
born  of  the  flesh  is  flesh,"  says  the  Redeemer.^  And 
"  they  which  are  the  children  of  the  flesh,  —  these 
are  not  the  children  of  God,"  says  the  apostle  of  the 
Gentiles.2  Then,  however  faithful  the  believer,  "  his 
offspring,  bone  of  his  bone  and  flesh  of  his  flesh," 
are  not  the  children  of  God,  but  are  flesh,  and  have 
no  place  in  the  church  until  they  be  "  born  again," 
and  become  "new  creatures;"  for  Jesus  tells  us 
that  one  cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom,  except  he 
be  born  again.  Who  is  it  that  is  so  much  more 
highly  favored  than  "  the  father  of  the  faithful," 
"the  friend  of  God,"  that  the  children  of  his  flesh, 
because  they  are  "  flesh  of  his  flesh,"  are  therefore 
"  the  children  of  God  "  ?  Who  is  this  Christian 
Abraham  ?  Does  not  every  Pedobaptist  claim  to 
be  such  a  person,  when  he  says,  "  Because  I  am  a 
believer,  therefore  my  child,  bone  of  my  bone  and 
flesh  of  my  flesh,  is  born  a  member  of  the  church, 
—  enters  the  kingdom  of  God  by  his  mere  carnal 
birth  "  ?  This  high  distinction  has  been  taken  from 
Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob  ;  indeed,  as  we  have 
seen  (§  189),  was  never  fully  given  to  them.     But, 

1  John  iii.  6.  2  Rom.  ix.  8. 


THE   TECNOBAPTIST.  107 

if  the  offspring  of  church  members  be  members  in 
virtue  of  their  birth,  the  distinction  is  now  fully 
given  to  Christian  patriarchs  ;  and  the  church  is 
once  more,  as  it  was  of  old,  a  church  of  carnal 
descent.  But  the  Lord  of  righteousness  and  truth 
says  otherwise  ;  and,  if  we  assert  this,  "  we  make 
him  a  liar."  It  was  agreed  between  us,  that  the 
church  is  no  longer  a  church  of  carnal  descent,  but 
is  now  spiritual  (§  41)  ;  and  its  divine  Head  has 
declared  the  necessity  of  a  new  and  spiritual  birth, 
in  order  to  get  admittance  into  it. 

§198.  Mr.  C.  True,  —  very  true.  We  are  once 
born  sinners  :  we  must  be  born  again,  that  we  may 
be  saints. 

.  "  Whate'er  may  be  his  birth  or  blood, 
The  sinner's  boast  is  vain: 
Thus  saith  the  glorious  Sou  of  God, 
'  Ye  must  be  born  again.'  " 

And  regeneration  is  a  spiritual,  real  change  of  the 
whole  man,  fitly  compared  to  corporal  generation,  — 
a  change  without  which  we  cannot  enter  into  the 
kingdom  of  God. 

§  199.  Mr.  A.  If  Christ  were  now  on  earth,  and 
we  brought  an  infant  to  him,  we  cannot  doubt  that 
he  would  receive  and  embrace  it.  Yet  you  would 
have  us  suppose,  that,  if  we  bring  the  infant  to  be 
admitted  into  his  church,  or  mystical  body,  he  will 
reject  it  for  incapacity  ! 

§  200.     Mr.  B.  A  child  may  well  have  a  capacity 


108  THE   TECNOBAPTIST. 

for  one  tiling,  yet  not  for  some  other  thing,  —  a 
capacity  to  be  received  into  the  arms,  embraced, 
prayed  for,  blessed ;  yet  not  to  be  made  a  soldier, 
or  professor  of  mathematics,  nor  yet  to  be  admitted 
into  a  church  which  none  can  enter  without  regene- 
ration. We  may  well  believe,  that,  were  Jesus  on 
earth,  he  would  still  love  the  innocence  of  child- 
hood ;  would  give  his  benediction- to  little  children ; 
would  "  lay  his  hands  upon  them,  and  pray,"  ac- 
cording to  the  usual  manner  of  the  Jews.  Yet  this 
would  create  no  necessity,  that,  in  order  to  avoid 
inconsistency,  he  should  also  give  them  admittance 
into  his  church  by  other  means  than  he  has  ap- 
pointed, —  admit  them  without  those  qualifications 
which  he  has  made  prerequisites  to  membership. 
This  would  itself  be  gross  inconsistency.  As  well 
might  we  say,  that,  having  said  to  the  adulteress, 
"  Neither  do  I  condemn  thee :  go,  and  sin  no  more ; " 
having  cleansed  the  ten  lepers,  of  whom  but  one 
returned  to  give  glory  to  God ;  having  raised  from 
death  the  son  of  the  widow  of  Nain,  —  for  these 
favors  he  was  under  obligation  to  admit  the  adul- 
teress, the  lepers,  the  widow  and  her  son,  "  into  his 
church,  or  mystical  body  ;  "  nay,  that,  since  we 
cannot  doubt  he  would  do  the  like  favors  if  he  were 
now  on  earth,  therefore  every  adulteress,  leper, 
widow,  and  widow's  son,  ought  to  be  baptized,  and 
received  into  the  church.  I  have  sometimes  heard 
this  application  of  the  old  maxim,  that  "  one  good 


THE   TECNOBAPTIST.  109 

turn  deserves  another,"  but  never  before  with  any 
thing  like  seriousness. 

§  201.  Mr.  A.  But  our  Saviour  bids  us  to  suffer 
little  children  to  come  unto  him,  and  forbid  them 
not.  And,  since  he  is  now  present  with  us  only 
in  his  ordinances  and  sacraments,  what  way  have 
we  to  bring  our  children  to  him,  as  he  orders, 
but,  by  baptism,  to  offer  and  dedicate  them  to 
him  ? 

§  202.  Mr.  B.  An  invalid  might  as  reasonably 
say,  "  My  physician  has  restricted  me  to  vegetable: 
diet ;  therefore  I  can  eat  nothing  but  cucumbers." 
As  there  are  other  vegetables  beside  cucumbers,  so 
there  are  other  ordinances  beside  baptism.  We 
should  not  only  suffer  children  to  go  to  Christ,  but 
use  our  utmost  diligence  to  bring  them  to  him.. 
Let  parents  bring  their  children  to  God,  in  frequent, 
fervent  prayers ;  if  you  will,  let  them  present  them 
in  the  congregation  for  the  prayers  of  the  church  ; 
above  all,  let  them  lead  the  little  ones  to  Christ  by 
instruction  and  example :  but,  by  baptism,  they  can- 
not be  brought  to  him.  God  has  been  pleased  to 
constitute  the  church  of  such  as,  by  a  spiritual  birth, 
have  become  the  spiritual  seed  of  Abraham.  He 
has  been  pleased  to  create  infants  with  such  feeble 
and  unexercised  faculties,  that  they  are  not  capable 
of  that  spiritual  birth ;  yet,  in  his  great  benevolence, 
Jesus  blesses  them.  Is  he,  therefore,  guilty  of  in- 
consistency, if  he  go  not  so  far  as  to  admit  them 

10 


110  THE   TECNOBAPTIST. 

into  his  church,  though  they  are  incapable  of  the 
prerequisites  ? 

§  203.  Mr.  A.  Surely  you  would  not  maintain 
that  a  whole  class  of  individuals  would  be  proper 
for  one  church,  who  ought  to  be  discarded  from 
the  other  ? 

§  204.  Mr.  B.  If  not,  we  must  admit  all  ser- 
vants bought  with  money,  whether  converted  or  not ; 
for  such  received  circumcision  in  the  Old-Testament 
church  (§  28).  The  "whole  class"  of  carnal  in- 
fants, if  they  be  regenerate,  are  not  discarded  from 
the  church :  if  not  regenerate,  they  are  discarded 
from  it  by  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  himself,  as  part  of 
*'  a  whole  class  "  which  is  still  larger ;  that  is,  the 
whole  class  of  unregenerate  persons,  whether  bond 
or  free,  male  or  female,  infant  or  adult. 

§  205.  Mr.  A.  What,  then,  shall  we  conclude  as 
to  infant-salvation  ? 

§  206.  Mr.  C.  The  most  probable  opinion  is,  that 
infants  are  all  saved,  through  the  merits  of  the 
Mediator,  with  an  everlasting  salvation.  This  has 
nothing  in  it  contrary  to  the  perfections  of  God,  or 
to  any  declaration  of  the  Holy  Scriptures ;  and  it  is 
highly  agreeable  to  all  those  passages  which  affirm, 
that,  where  sin  abounded,  grace  hath  much  more 
abounded.  On  these  principles,  the  death  of  Christ 
saves  more  than  the  fall  of  Adam  lost. 

§  207.     Mr.  B.  My  supposition  is,  that  only  those 
who  might  have  believed,  but  did  not  believe  the 


THE   TECNOBAPTIST.  Ill 

Lord,  will  be  refused  admittance  into  the  heavenly 
Canaan  ;  while  all  adults,  who,  like  Caleb,  the  son  of 
Jephunneh,  have  wholly  followed  the  Lord,  together 
with  the  little  ones,  the  children  which  had  no 
knowledge  between  good  and  evil,  —  they  shall  go 
in  thither ;  unto  them  it  shall  be  given,  and  they 
shall  possess  it.  ^ 

§  208.  Mr.  A.  But,  if  infants  be  unfit  for  the 
purer  order  of  things,  must  they  not  also  be  ex- 
cluded from  heaven  ?  Or  may  they  possibly  be 
admitted  into  the  society  above,  while  it  would 
be  proper  to  exclude  them  from  that  on  earth  ? 

§  209.  Mr.  B.  You  cannot  argue  from  infant- 
salvation  to  infant-baptism.  Before  we  condemn 
the  doctrine,  that  infants  must  not  be  baptized,  or 
admitted  into  the  church,  on  account  of  the  other 
doctrine,  that  those  who  die  in  infancy  cannot  be 
saved,  we  must  establish,  firstly,  that  the  former 
doctrine  involves  the  latter  ;  secondly,  that  the 
latter  doctrine  is  false.  If  both  points  be  admitted, 
my  doctrine  must  fall.  But  the  force  of  the  objec- 
tion is  not  exhausted  here.  Like  a  demurrer  in 
law,  it  must  be  carried  back  to  the  first  error.  The 
doctrine,  that  infants  should  not  be  baptized,  is  a 
conclusion  logically  deduced  from  certain  premises. 
If  the  premises  have  led  to  a  wrong  conclusion,  it 
is  necessarily  because  they  are  false.  If  false,  away 
goes  the   chief  corner-stone  of  the  doctrine,   that 

1  Deut.  i.  39. 


112  THE   TECNOBAPTIST. 

infants  may  properly  be  baptized  ;  for  our  premises 
consist  of  the  very  points  for  which  Pedobaptist 
writers  contend,  and  from  which  they  argue  —  illogi- 
cally,  it  is  true  —  that  infants  are  proper  subjects  of 
baptism.  But  are  the  premises  true  ?  If  so,  we 
must  follow  fair  logical  deductions  from  them, 
"whithersoever  they  may  lead  "  (§  16),  though  it 
be  to  the  doctrine,  that  all  infants,  or  all  mankind, 
are  damned.  If  logical  deductions  from  true  pre- 
mises lead  to  that  conclusion,  the  doctrine  is  incon- 
testably  true  ;  and  we  cannot  destroy  its  truth  by 
burying  our  heads,  ostrich-like,  beneath  the  sand  of 
error.  We  ought  to  believe  God's  truth,  however 
painful  the  belief  may  be.  Nor  should  we  reject 
any  doctrine  as  false  because  it  involves  another 
doctrine  which  is  true,  and  against  which  we  can 
urge  no  better  objection  than  that  it  pains  us  to 
believe  it.  But  can  we  assert  that  the  doctrine  is 
false,  that  persons  dying  in  infancy  cannot  be 
saved  ?  Is  it  certain  that  infants  are  admitted  into 
heaven  ?  I  defy  you  to  show  any  promise  of  salva- 
tion to  infants,  whether  baptized  or  not. 

§  210.  Mr.  A,  You  have  already  declared  your 
belief  that  they  are  saved  ;  and,  as  for  myself,  I 
gladly  admit,  in  opposition  to  the  Calvinistic  Bap- 
tists, that  all  children,  dying  before  actual  sin  com- 
mitted, are  admitted  into  heaven  through  the  merits 
of  Christ. 

§  211.     Mr.  B.    I  stated  only  my  own  supposi- 


THE   TECNOBAPTIST.  113 

tioii.  I  may  even  say,  that  I  firmly  believe  infants 
are  saved,  —  not  only  the  baptized,  but  all  who  die 
in  infancy.  Yet  this  faith  is  not  founded  on  such 
evidence  that  I  can  assert  infant-salvation  as  un- 
questionably certain,  and  pronounce  every  doctrine 
false  which  conflicts  with  it ;  but  I  could  find  no 
more  difficulty  in  believing  that  all  are  damned, 
than  that  one  is  damned.  The  condemnation  of 
innocence  is  contrary  to  my  conception  of  divine 
character ;  and,  where  all  are  equally  innocent,  I  can 
see  no  reason  for  making  a  distinction,  —  condemn- 
ing some,  and  not  all.  While  I  assert  that  you 
cannot  prove  that  all  infants  are  not  damned  or 
annihilated,  I  assert  that  there  is  no  reason  to 
believe  that  one  is  damned  or  annihilated.  The 
all-wise  and  merciful  God  has  revealed  all  that  is 
necessary,  but  nothing  which  will  serve  merely  to 
gratify  curiosity.  For  those  who  are  capable  of  faith 
and  obedience  he  has  revealed  a  way  of  salvation, 
because  such  revelation  is  necessary  to  guide  their 
actions,  and  enable  them  to  follow  the  way.  But, 
as  he  has  been  pleased  to  create  babes  incapable  of 
faith  and  obedience,  no  revelation  is  necessary  for 
them;  and  he  has  not  condescended  to  reveal  to 
adults  what  his  loving-kindness  has  prepared  for 
those  who  die  in  infancy.  Hence  all  that  I  might 
say  on  that  subject  would  be  mere  speculation.  I 
know  nothing  about  it ;  and  it  is  my  opinion  that 
both  you  and  "  the  Calvinistic  Baptists"  know  just  as 

10* 


114  THE   TECNOBAPTIST. 

little.  But  when  I  contemplate  the  ways  of  Provi- 
dence, and  consider  the  attributes  of  God  as  revealed 
in  his  word,  I  cannot  feel  the  slightest  fear  for  in- 
fants who  die  before  the  commission  of  sin.  My 
faith  is  such,  that  I  am  willing  to  trust  the  little 
innocents  to  Him  whose  way  is  equal ;  whose  com- 
passions fail  not ;  who  hath  no  pleasure  in  the  death 
of  even  the  wicked ;  but  so  loved  the  world  as  to 
give  his  own  dear  Son,  the  only-begotten,  to  suffer 
agony  and  a  felon's  death,  that,  through  him,  even 
the  chief  of  sinners  might  be  redeemed  and  saved. 
I  cannot  fear  that  the  just,  the  compassionate  God, 
who  is  gracious  and  merciful,  slow  to  anger,  and  of 
great  kindness,  will  bless  one  child  with  the  joys 
of  heaven,  without  any  personal  deserving,  yet  doom 
another  to  the  pains  of  hell,  or  Limbo,  without  any 
personal  undeserving,  and  all  because  of  the  fortui- 
tous circumstance,  that  the  one  was  born  of  believ- 
ing parents,  the  other  of  unbelievers,  though  neither 
was  permitted  to  make  choice  of  parentage  ;  or 
because  the  one  was  baptized,  and  the  other  was  not, 
though  neither  understood,  rejected,  or  desired,  the 
ordinance.  "  Behold,  all  souls  are  mine,"  saith 
the  Lord  God ;  "  as  the  soul  of  the  father,  so  also 
the  soul  of  the  son,  is  mine  :  the  soul  that  sinneth, 
it  shall  die."^  I  cannot  believe  that  the  just,  the 
merciful  God  will  condemn  any  infant ;  and,  if  one 
shall  be  condemned,  I  can  see  no  reason  why  all 

1  Ezek.  xviii.  4. 


THE   TECNOBAPTIST.  115 

should  not  be.  This  is  merely  an  opinion,  however, 
and  would  yield  to  logical  deductions  from  sound 
premises.  But  let  us  now  consider  the  other  branch 
of  the  subject ;  conceding,  for  all  the  purposes  of 
the  argument,  that  it  is  a  known  truth,  that  ''  all 
children,  dying  before  actual  sin  committed,  are  ad- 
mitted into  heaven,  through  the  merits  of  Christ." 

§  212.  Mr.  A.  If  they  be  admitted  into  heaven, 
for  this  very  reason  it  follows  that  infants  are  proper 
subjects  to  be  introduced  into  the  church  on  earth. 

§  213.  Mr.  B.  Does  it  follow  for  that  very 
reason  ?  Does  the  doctrine,  that  infants  cannot 
properly  be  baptized,  or  received  into  the  church, 
involve  the  doctrine,  that  they  cannot  be  saved  ?  In 
other  words,  is  the  admission  of  infants  into  heaven 
inconsistent  with  their  exclusion  from  baptism  or 
from  the  church  ?  If  so,  the  admission  of  infants 
into  heaven  was  inconsistent  with  their  exclusion 
from  circumcision  under  the  old  dispensation.  If 
the  rejection  of  infant-baptism  be  equivalent  to  the 
rejection  of  infant-salvation,  it  must  be  because 
the  salvation  of  infants  depends  upon  their  baptism. 
If  so,  then,  under  the  old  dispensation,  the  salvation 
of  infants  depended  on  their  circumcision :  for  bap- 
tism has  taken  the  place  of  circumcision, — means  the 
same  thing  as  a  moral  emblem  ;  and  "  whatever  be- 
longed to  circumcision,  except  the  difference  of  visi- 
ble ceremony,  belongs  also  to  baptism"  (§§  49-51). 
All  females  were  excluded  from  circumcision :  were 


116  THE   TECNOBAPTIST. 

they  therefore  damned  ?  God  would  not  permit 
infants  to  be  circumcised  before  the  eighth  day  ;  yet, 
no  doubt,  he  permitted  many  to  die  before  that 
time.  Shall  we  conclude  that  he  thus  caused  them 
to  be  damned,  though  he  might  have  either  pro- 
longed their  lives  to  the  eighth  day,  or  permitted 
their  circumcision  before  that  time  ?  There  is  no 
more  reason  to  fear  that  those  will  be  lost  who  die 
without  baptism,  before  they  are  capable  of  sin,  than 
to  believe  that  infants  were  lost  who  died  uncircum- 
cised  before  the  eighth  day ;  and  there  is  no  more 
reason  to  suppose  we  can  benefit  infants  now  by  bap- 
tism, than  to  believe  that  an  infant,  dying  before  the 
eighth  day,  would  have  been  benefited  by  circum- 
cision. Nay,  more  :  we  have  no  more  reason  to 
believe  that  unbaptized  infants  are  damned,  than 
to  believe  that  all  infants  are  damned ;  and  we 
have  as  much  reason  to  believe  that  all  infants  are 
saved,  as  that  baptized  infants  are  saved. 

§  214.  Mr.  A.  God  did  not  require  infants  to 
be  circumcised  before  they  were  proper  subjects  ; 
which  they  were  not,  till  the  eighth  day. 

§  215.  Mr.  B.  God  does  not  require  any  one  to  be 
baptized  before  he  is  a  proper  subject ;  and,  if  our 
argument  be  correct,  no  one  is  a  proper  subject  till 
he  be  regenerate  (§§  116,  174).  But  God  himself 
has  so  constituted  infants,  that  they  are  incapable 
of  regeneration  (§  180). 

§  216.     Mr.  A.   By  the  same  rule,  adult  infidels 


THE   TECNOBAPTIST.  117 

ought  to  be  received  into  heaven ;  for  they  are  not 
proper  subjects  of  baptism,  and  hence  are  not  re- 
quired to  be  baptized. 

§  21T.  Mr.  B.  If  the  "  rule  "  be  bad,  you  must 
bear  the  blame  ;  for  it  is  yours.  I  did  but  apply  it 
to  baptism ;  which  you  say  is  the  same  as  circum- 
cision, except  in  form.  But  the  rule  does  not  apply 
to  infidels  as  to  infants.  The  rule  which  excuses 
persons  from  obedience  because  of  incapacity  does 
not  by  any  means  excuse  disobedience  in  persons 
who  are  capable  of  obeying.  The  adult  is  con- 
demned, not  for  want  of  baptism,  but  for  want  of 
faith.  He  is  capable  of  believing,  while  the  child 
is  not.  He  rejects  the  "  great  salvation,"  while  the 
child  does  .not.  He  falls  within  the  rule,  that  "  he 
that  believeth  not  shall  be  damned."  A  thousand 
baptisms  could  not  save  him  without  faith.  His 
case  differs  widely  from  that  of  the  infant. 

§  218.  Mr.  A.  The  infant  is  necessarily  excused 
from  faith  and  repentance,  for  want  of  capacity  ;  but 
it  is  not  so  in  regard  to  baptism.  What  promise  is 
there  of  life  and  salvation  but  to  those  who  believe 
and  are  baptized,  and  devote  themselves  to  the  ser- 
vice of  God  ? 

§  219.  Mr.  B.  None  ;  none  whatever.  Must  we 
therefore  conclude  that  the  unbaptized  infant  cannot 
have  life  and  salvation  ?  By  parity  of  reasoning,  we 
must  deny  life  and  salvation  to  all  babes  that  do  not 
believe,  and  "  devote  themselves  to  the  service  of 


118  THE  TECNOBAPTIST. 

God."  No  infant  can  do  either  :  shall  we  say  that 
all  are  therefore  damned  ?  We  may  as  reasonably 
conclude  thus,  as  that  they  will  be  damned  for  want 
of  baptism.  What  injustice  do  we  attribute  to  the 
just  God,  when  we  suppose  he  will  condemn  those 
for  want  of  faith  who  have  not  capacity  to  believe 
or  disbelieve  ;  that  he  will  condemn  those  for  want 
of  service  who  cannot  serve  either  God  or  Mam- 
mon !  Equal  injustice  would  it  be  in  him  to  eter- 
nally damn  the  helpless  innocents  because  others 
neglect  to  sprinkle  water  on  them.  That  the  inno- 
cent should  be  as  the  wicked,  —  that  be  far  from  God. 
Shall  not  the  Judge  of  all  the  earth  do  right  ?  ^ 

§  220.  Mr.  A.  Although  the  phrase,  "  kingdom 
of  God,"  is  most  frequently  used  by  our  Lord  to 
denote  the  church  on  earth,  some  believe,  that,  in 
the  discourse  with  Nicodemus,  that  phrase  is  used, 
in  its  highest  sense,  to  express  the  future  state  of 
felicity  ;  and  hence  that  the  doctrine,  that  infants 
may  be  saved  without  baptism,  conflicts  with  the 
rule  given  by  our  Saviour :  "  Except  one  be  born  of 
water  and  the  Spirit,  he  cannot  enter  into  the  king- 
dom of  God."     This  includes  children  and  all. 

§  221.  Mr.  B.  That  rule,  so  interpreted,  ex- 
cludes infants  from  salvation,  even  if  they  be  bap- 
tized ;  for  it  requires  them  to  be  "  born  of  the 
Spirit ; "  which,  as  we  have  seen,  is  impossible 
(§  180).     And,  if  your  text  prove  that  they  will 

1  Gen.  xviii.  25. 


THE  TECNOBAPTIST.  119 

be   lost  without  baptism,  I  can   prove  by  a  text, 
which,  in  its  terms,  equally  "  includes  infants  and 
all,"  that  they  will  be  lost  with  baptism.     "  He  that 
believeth,  and  is  baptized,  shall  be  saved."     This 
shows  that  baptized  infants  are  saved,  provided  they 
believe.     But  the  text  goes  farther,  and  says,  "  He 
that  believeth  not  shall  be  damned."  ^    Then,  though 
the  infant  be  baptized,  yet,  if  he  believe  not,»he  is 
damned ;  and  all  infants,  being  incapable  of  believ- 
ing, are  necessarily  damned.      In  this  view,  they 
cannot   be    benefited  by  baptism.     Again :    Jesus 
said  to  the  Jews,  "  Except  ye  eat  the  flesh  of  the 
Son  of  man,  and  drink  his  blood,  ye  have  no  life 
in  you."  ^    Here  your  mode  of  interpretation  would 
lead  us  to  conclude,  with  Augustine,  and  other  emi- 
nent fathers  of  the  church,  as  they  are  called,  that 
infants  cannot  be  saved  unless  they  partake  of  the 
Lord's  supper ;  and  to  argue,  with  him,  that  since, 
according  to  the  general  opinion,  none  may  do  so 
but  those  who  are  baptized,  therefore  infants  not 
baptized  cannot  have  life.     You  may  easily  show 
that  these  texts  do  not  touch  the  question  of  infant- 
salvation  ;  and  I  can  show,  by  the  same  argument, 
that  the  other  text  touches  it  quite  as  little.     And 
I  can  add  this  farther  argument,  that,  while  my 
texts  relate  unquestionably  to  the  subject  of  salva- 
tion, in  some  sense,  the  other  relates  only  to  entrance 
into  the  church ;  for  you  properly  interpreted  the 

1  Mark  xvi.  16.  2  John  vi.  53. 


120  THE   TECNOBAPTIST. 

phrase  "  kingdom  of  God,"  in  John  iii.  3,  5,  to 
signify  the  church  (§  31). 

§  222.  Mr.  A.  The  church  on  earth  is  but  the 
vestibule  of  the  glorified  church  above.  If  the  great 
Head  of  the  church  regards  infants  worthy  to  enter 
his  church  in  its  highest  state  of  perfection,  I  can- 
not divest  myself  of  the  impression,  that  it  is  incon- 
sistent, absurd,  to  suppose  that  man  may  not  admit 
them  into  the  church  below,  where  even  the  best 
adult  cannot  pretend  to  half  their  purity. 

§  223.  Mr.  B.  Man  must  submit  to  the  exclu- 
sion of  infants  from  the  church  on  earth,  because 
such  is  the  will  of  "  the  great  Head  of  the  church." 
If  God  reject  infants  from  the  church  on  earth,  and 
receive  them  into  heaven,  is  this  inconsistent  or 
absurd?  I  will  not  pronounce  it  so,  until  it  be 
proved,  that,  when  infants'  souls  are  released  from 
their  clay  tabernacles,  they  are  under  the  like  in- 
capacity to  enter  heaven  as  infants  are  to  enter  the 
chur-^h,  and  that  they  are  received  into  heaven  not- 
withstanding that  incapacity  ;  which  would  itself  be 
an  inconsistency.  It  is  not  dealing  fairly  with  the 
Lord  to  assume  that  he  does  this,  and,  on  that 
ground,  either  to  charge  him  with  inconsistency,  or 
to  make  it  a  precedent  for  ourselves  to  run  into 
the  same  inconsistency,  which,  without  proof,  we 
attribute  to  him,  and  charge  all  Christians  with 
inconsistency  who  will  not  follow  our  example. 
Some  Christians  think  they  are  justified  by  Paul 


THE   TECNOBAPTIST.  121 

in  believing,  that  "  when  the  Gentiles,  who  have 
not  tlie  law,  do  by  nature  the  things  contained  in 
the  law,"  they  will  be  saved. ^  Are  such  Christians 
inconsistent  in  not  admitting  such  Gentiles  into  the 
church  of  Christ  without  that  faith  which  Christ 
himself  requires  of  those  who  enter  his  church  on 
earth  ?  They  are  not  more  inconsistent  who  believe 
infants  are  received  into  heaven,  yet  will  not  admit 
them  into  the  church.  It  is  for  God  to  receive  into 
heaven  whom  he  sees  fit,  and  for  man  to  reject 
from  the  church  all  who  manifestly  do  not  possess 
those  qualifications  which  God  has  taught  us  are 
necessary  to  their  membership.  If  it  were  posi- 
tively certain  that  all  who  die  in  infancy  are  ad- 
mitted into  heaven,  it  would  afford  no  reason  why 
living  infants  should  be  admitted  into  the  church, 
at  least  until  we  are  also  certain  that  living  infants 
are  equally  proper  for  the  church  militant  as  their 
disembodied  souls  are  for  the  church  triumphant ; 
that  they  are  as  well  qualified  to  fight  the  good 
fight  of  faith  as  their  souls  to  enjoy  the  victory 
which  Jesus  Christ  has  achieved  for  them. 

§  224.  The  privileges  and  duties  of  the  church 
on  earth  are  intended  for  our  probationary  state, 
and  are  designed  only  for  such  persons  as  are 
capable  of  participating  in  them.  It  has  pleased 
God  so  to  create  us,  that,  in  our  early  days,  we 
are  not  capable  of  enjoying  those  privileges  or  per- 

1  Rom.  ii.  14. 
11 


122  THE   TECNOBAPTIST. 

forming  those  duties.  The  physical  organs  imph*- 
cated  in  the  operations  of  mind  are  such,  that 
reason  cannot  be  exercised  upon  the  truths  of 
Christianity.  The  soul  is,  as  it  were,  in  a  dark 
prison-house,  fettered  and  manacled ;  but  when 
the  death-angel  comes  to  the  imprisoned  soul  as  the 
angel  of  the  Lord  came  to  Peter  in  prison,  and 
the  chains  fall  from  his  hands  and  feet,  we  cannot 
know  what  is  the  condition  of  that  soul.  My  own 
conjecture  is,  that  it  becomes  instantly  capable  of 
participating  in  the  delights  of  heaven.  One  thing, 
at  least,  we  see,  —  that,  before  that  release,  the  in- 
fant is  not  capable  of  performing  any  duty,  enjoying 
any  privilege,  or  understanding  any  obligation,  of 
church  membership.  It  is  only  during  the  period 
before  death  that  we  have  to  do  with  the  infant ; 
and,  for  the  rest,  we  may  safely  trust  to  God,  that 
whatever  change  is  necessary  for  the  soul  after  its 
release  from  the  clay  tenement,  in  order  to  prepare 
it  for  heaven,  he  is  able  to  effect,  and  that  he  will 
effect  it  if  it  please  him  to  receive  the  soul  into 
heaven,  and  that  he  will  so  effect  it  as  not  to  be 
guilty  of  inconsistency.^ 

1  Since  writing  the  above,  I  have  met  with  the  following  excellent 
remarks  by  Chillingworth:  "  The  rule  of  the  law  is  also  the  dictate  of 
common  reason  and  equity,  —  that  no  man  can  be  obliged  to  do  what  is 
imnossible.  We  can  be  obliged  to  do  nothing,  except  by  virtue  of  some 
command.  Now,  it  is  impossible  that  God  should  command  in  earnest 
any  thing  which  he  knows  to  be  impossible:  for  to  command  in  earnest  is 
to  command  with  an  intent  to  be  obeyed ;  which  is  not  possible  he  should 
do,  when  he  knows  the  thing  commanded  to  be  impossible      Whosoever 


THE  TECNOBAPTIST.  123 

§  225.  Mr.  A.  My  reluctance  to  admit  your 
doctrine  is  caused  by  the  evils  to  which  it  must 
lead.  Parents,  not  having  dedicated  their  child  to 
God  by  baptism  in  infancy,  want  much  of  what  they 
otherwise  would  have  to  stimulate  them  in  the  re- 
ligious training  of  the  child. 

§  226.  Mr.  C.  Baptism  furnishes  pious  parents 
with  a  good  argument  for  an  early  dedication  of 
their  child  to  God. 

§  227.  Mr.  B.  Leaving  you  to  determine  be- 
tween yourselves  whether  baptism  is  a  dedication  of 
the  child  to  God,  or  merely  an  argument  for  such 
dedication,  I  will  remind  you,  that,  a  few  moments 
ago,  you  thought  "  the  voice  of  nature  "  was  very 
importunate  for  the  baptism  and  church  membership 
of  children  (§  182)  ;  yet  now  you  seem  to  think  its 
pleadings  are  not  sufficient  to  induce  parents  to 
train  their  child  for  God,  but  that  the  additional 
argument  or  stimulant  of  baptism  is  necessary  to 
urge  them  to  the  performance  of  this  duty.  Surely 
"  the  voice  of  nature,"  which  is  so  clamorously  lifted 
up  in  behalf  of  infant-baptism,  and  makes  parents 
so  eager  to  secure  church  membership  for  their 
child,  —  surely  it  must  plead  still  more  earnestly 


is  obliged  to  do  a  thing,  and  does  it  not,  commits  a  fault:  but  infants 
commit  no  fault  in  not  procuring  to  have  baptism;  therefore  no  obliga- 
tion lies  upon  them  to  procure  it.  We  must  believe  that  God  will  not 
deal  unjustly  with  them:  but  how  in  particular  he  will  deal  with  them 
concerns  not  us;  and  therefore  we  need  not  much  regard  it."  —  Religion 
of  Protestants. 


124  THE   TECNOBAPTIST. 

with  them  to  secure  for  him  all  those  things  which 
are  great  blessings  without  baptism  or  church  mem- 
bership, but  without  which  these  are  nothing  ;  that 
true  faith  and  love  for  the  Saviour  which  will  lead 
the  child  to  seek  baptism  of  his  own  accord,  when 
he  is  ready  to  receive  it;  which  will,  after  death, 
secure  him  eternal  life.  Is  that  pleading  voice  so 
easily  satisfied,  that  its  clamors  can  be  silenced  by  a 
few  drops  of  water  ?  'Tis  here,  indeed,  I  think  the 
danger  lies.  Security  does  not  excite  solicitude.  A 
peril  known  creates  anxiety ;  a  sense  of  safety  lulls. 
Parents  are  eager  to  have  their  infants  baptized 
into  the  church,  as  an  ark  of  safety ;  and,  when 
they  delude  themselves  into  the  belief  that  the  little 
ones  are  in  that  ark,  they  are  often  too  well  satis- 
fied with  the  security  which  they  suppose  they  have 
provided,  to  exert  themselves  properly  to  insure  a 
real  security.  Thus,  instead  of  "  stimulating  them 
in  the  religious  training  "  of  their  child,  it  has  the 
contrary  tendency. 

§  228.  Mr.  C.  By  this  rite,  the  assurance  is 
given  them,  in  a  solemn  and  impressive  manner, 
that  the  great  privileges  and  promises  bestowed 
upon  Christians  will  be  imparted  to  their  child 
also ;  and  thus  religious  feelings,  pious  thoughts 
and  resolutions,  are  promoted  in  them. 

§  229.  Mr.  B.  If  they  be  not  satisfied  from  the 
word  of  God  that  those  privileges  and  promises 
"•  will  be  imparted  to  their  child,"  and  to  all  others. 


THE  TECNOBAPTIST.*  125 

provided  tliey  fulfil  the  conditions  which  God  re- 
quires, it  is  difficult  to  imagine  how  that  assurance 
can  be  given  them  by  any  mere  rite  performed  by 
man,  however  solemn  and  impressive. 

§  230.  Mr.  C.  But  by  this  rite  they  are  engaged 
and  encouraged  to  educate  their  child  in  a  Chris- 
tian manner,  in  order  that  he  may  receive  those 
privileges,  and  attain  one  day  to  the  actual  exer- 
cise and  enjoyment  of  them. 

§  231.  Mr.  B.  I  cannot  conceive  how  they  can 
be  "engaged  and  encouraged"  by' any  rite  to  give 
their  child  a  Christian  education,  if  the  best  in- 
terests of  the  child  have  failed  thus  to  engage,  and 
the  promises  of  the  word  of  truth  to  thus  encourage 
them.  If  the  love  which  an  all-good  and  all-wise 
Creator  has  implanted  in  parental  hearts  be  not 
sufficient  to  secure  for  the  child  the  best  religious 
training  which  the  parents  are  able  to  give,  the 
deficiency  can  never  be  supplied  by  the  argument 
or  stimulant  of  any  momentary  ceremony,  however 
solemn  and  imposing ;  or  the  impression  on  hearts 
so  clay-cold  and  unnatural  as  to  need  such  extra- 
neous incitements  would  be  so  fleeting,  as  to  require 
the  frequent  repetition  of  the  warming  ceremony. 
But  there  is  no  way  to  impart  to  water  such  proper- 
ties, that,  by  applying  it  to  an  infant's  body,  it  will 
warm  a  parent's  heart,  and  still  less  keep  it  warm 
for  years.  Parents  who  deserve  to  be  blessed  with 
11* 


126  '^H 


E   TECNOBAPTIST. 


children  will  need  no  such  incitement,  and  others 
will  not  be  affected  by  it. 

§  232.  Mr.  A.  But  those  whose  child  has  not 
been  baptized  have  not  the  same  faith  as  those 
parents  who  believe  that  God  will  certainly  bless 
the  course  of  training  they  are  pursuing. 

§  233.  Mr.  B.  I  cannot  perceive  why  they  should 
have  less  faith  than  others,  or  should  not  equally 
believe  that  God  will  bless  their  efforts  to  train 
their  child  religiously,  or  should  want  any  thing 
which  others  possess  to  stimulate  their  efforts 
(§  224).  On  the  contrary,  regarding  it  important 
that  all  persons  should  have  the  benefits  of  baptism 
so  soon  as  it  may  properly  be  administered,  they 
will  be  the  more  strenuous  in  their  efforts  to  pre- 
pare their  children  for  the  enjoyment  of  those 
benefits ;  to  beget  them  "  through  the  gospel,"  so 
that  they  may  be  "  born  of  the  Spirit,"  and  receive 
"  the  circumcision  of  Christ." 

§  234.  Mr.  A.  It  is  certain  that  baptizing  a 
child  does  him  no  harm ;  it  debars  him  from  no 
right;  it  subjects  him  to  no  manner  of  inconve- 
nience. It  confers  upon  him  blessings  only,  and 
binds  him  but  to  his  own  best  good.  This  reason  for 
bringing  children  into  covenant  with  God  was  given, 
not  only  by  ancient  Jewish  writers,  but  also  by  the 
early  Christians,  who,  as  they  ought,  acknowledged 
that  great  benefits  were  bestowed  on  baptized  chil- 
dren.    If  children  were  left,  as  too  many  are  left. 


THE  TECNOBAPTIST.  127 

unbaptized,  still  they  are  bound,  at  the  peril  of 
everlasting  perdition,  to  believe  and  to  do  all  those 
things  which  in  baptism  they  engage  to  do.  Who, 
that  lives  in  a  Christian  land,  is  not  bound  to  live 
as  a  Christian  ?  Who,  without  hazard  to  his  im- 
mortal soul,  can  "  neglect  so  great  salvation  "  ? 
There  is  no  engagement  in  the  baptismal  cove- 
nant in  behalf  of  a  child  which  he  is  not  bound, 
in  duty  to  God  and  regard  to  his  own  eternal  wel- 
fare, as  soon  as  he  is  capable  of  understanding  his 
duty,  to  perform. 

§  235.  Mr.  B.  Your  zeal  for  a  sinking  cause 
has  outstripped  your  usual  discretion,  and  makes 
you  fight  "  as  one  that  beateth  the  air."  Even  if 
it  were  true  that  infant-baptism  does  no  harm,  there 
is  no  rational  motive  to  apply  it,  if  it  will  do  no 
good.  You  say  it  confers  only  blessings  on  the 
child,  yet  have  failed  to  prove  that  it  confers  one ; 
while  our  argument  proves  that  it  is  absolutely 
void,  and  therefore  confers  no  blessing.  You  urge 
that  baptism  brings  the  child  under  no  new  obliga- 
tion to  pursue  a  Christian  path  in  life  ;  which  only 
shows,  that,  in  this  regard,  it  does  neither  good  nor 
harm.  If  there  be  no  engagement  in  the  baptismal 
covenant  which  the  child  is  not  bound  to  do,  whether 
baptized  or  not,  with  what  propriety  can  it  be  said 
that  baptism  "  binds  him  but  to  his  own  best 
good  "  ?  It  simply  binds  him  to  nothing ;  while, 
with  or  without  baptism,  he  is  bound,  "  so  soon  as 


128  THE  TECNOBAPTIST. 

he  is  capable  of  understanding  his  duty,  to  per- 
form "  all  those  things  which  are  for  "  his  own  best 
good."  It  is  therefore  much  better  that  each  per- 
son should  wait  until  his  baptism  may  be  regarded  as 
a  rational  act,  —  a  voluntary  acknowledgment  of  his 
obligation  to  perform  those  engagements  in  the  bap- 
tismal covenant  to  which  you  allude. 

§  236.  Mr.  A.  None  can  deny  that  this  is  what 
each  one  must  do  for  himself.  Does  it  follow  that 
there  is  nothing  which  we  must  do  for  each  other  ? 
Is  there  no  communion  of  saints  ? 

§  237.  Mr.  B.  There  are  many  things  which 
we  must  do  for  each  other  :  "  does  it  follow  "  that 
baptizing  infants  is  one  of  those  things  ?  And  what 
if  there  be  a  communion  of  saints  :  "  does  it  fol- 
low "  that  infants  must  be  baptized  ?  The  corollary 
is  utterly  inconsequent ;  or,  at  least,  I  am  unable  to 
perceive  its  logical  sequence,  or  to  imagine  a  third 
proposition  by  which  these  two  can  be  joined  in  a 
syllogism. 

§  238.  Mr.  A.  Are  we  not  bound  to  promote 
the  salvation  of  others  by  all  possible  means  ? 

§  239.  Mr.  B.  Assuredly.  But  does  that  obliga- 
tion require  us  to  do  what  will  not  have  the  slightest 
tendency  to  promote  their  salvation  ?  To  make  that 
obligation  an  argument  for  infant-baptism  is  a  petitio 
principii,  a  begging  the  question  ;  for  it  assumes 
that  the  baptism  of  infants  will  promote  their  salva- 
tion, and  is  therefore  a  divine  institution.     Establish 


THE  TECNOBAPTIST.  129 

this,  and  I  presume  all  will  urge  the  necessity  of 
infant-baptism  as  warmly  as  yourself. 

§  240.  Mr.  A,  The  wisdom  which  is  from  above 
teaches  us  to  ''  train  up  a  child  in  the  way  that  he 
•should  go,"  and  declares,  that,  "  when  he  is  old, 
he  will  not  depart  from  it." 

§  241.  Mr.  B.  True.  But  does  that  wisdom 
say  that  this  training  may  be  done  or  promoted  by 
baptizing  the  child  ? 

§  242.  Mr.  A.  The  most  decided  experience  has 
shown  that  no  means  of  establishing  men  in  the  faith 
and  fear  of  God  are  more  effectual  than  bringing 
them  up  from  childhood  in  his  nurture  and  admo- 
nition. And  to  say  that  this  should  be  neglected, 
with  a  view  to  leaving  them  free  to  seek  God  for 
themselves,  is  to  reject  the  wisdom  of  experience ; 
it  is  pretending  to  be  wiser  than  God ;  and,  on  the 
same  principle,  we  may  neglect  to  preach  to  men, 
to  pray  for  them,  or  to  exhort  one  another. 

§  243.  Mr.  B.  You  give  us  now  a  striking  ex- 
ample of  what  logicians  call  ignoratio  elenchi,  or 
irrelevant  conclusion.  You  most  earnestly  contend, 
with  diverse  forcible  arguments,  that  we  should  bring 
children  up  "  in  the  nurture  and  admonition  of  the 
Lord."  When  was  that  subject  put  in  issue  be- 
tween us?  How  is  it  involved  in  the  question, 
whether  children  are  proper  subjects  of  baptism  ? 
When  it  is  shown  that  they  cannot  be  brought  up 
"  in  the  nurture  and  admonition  of  the  Lord  "  with- 


130  THE   TECNOBAPTIST. 

out  having  been  first  baptized,  I  will  cry  aloud  for 
infant-baptism;  but,  for  the  present,  I  prefer  that 
they  should  be  thus  brought  up,  in  order  to  qualify 
them  for  the  reception  of  the  baptismal  rite. 

§  244.  Mr.  A.  If  it  is  our  duty  to  use  any- 
means  to  save  others,  it  is  our  duty  to  use  all  means 
which  God  has  put  in  our  power,  and  which  he  is 
pleased  to  bless  to  that  happy  effect. 

§  245.  Mr.  B.  Most  indubitably.  But  that  is 
nothing  to  the  point  in  question,  until  it  be  first 
established  that  infant-baptism  is  one  of  the  means 
"  which  he  is  pleased  to  bless  to  that  happy  effect." 

§  246.  Mr.  C.  Baptism  binds  the  parents  to 
teach  their  child,  so  soon  as  he  becomes  capable  of 
receiving  instruction,  the  importance  and  necessity 
of  regeneration,  and  all  other  fundamental  truths  of 
our  holy  religion.  It  causes  the  child  to  be  re- 
cognized as  bearing  a  most  important  relation  to 
the  church  of  God,  and  thus  places  him  in  a  situa- 
tion in  which  the  parents  are  bound  to  train  him  up 
for  God. 

§  247.  Mr.  B.  Is  not  every  parent  so  bound  ? 
They  are  no  Christians  whom  God  has  blessed  with 
children,  yet  who  do  not,  to  the  best  of  their  ability, 
"  train  them  up  for  God."  But  your  idea  is,  I  sup- 
pose, that  those  whose  children  are  baptized  are 
responsible  to  the  church  for  the  performance  of 
this  duty.  And  those  church  members,  whose  in- 
fants are  not  baptized,  are  equally  amenable  to  the 


THE   TECNOBAPTIST.  131 

church  for  the  neglect  of  this  duty ;  and  those  who 
are  not  church  members  are  not  the  less  amenable 
to  God.  Will  not  the  church  hold  its  members 
responsible  for  the  violation  of  any  Christian  duty  ? 
And  is  it  not  a  Christian  duty  for  parents  to  bring 
their  children  up  "  in  the  nurture  and  admonition 
of  the  Lord  "  ?  The  apostles  solemnly  urge  the 
duties  of  parents  as  among  the  chief  of  Christian 
duties.  Paul  declares,  that  "  if  any  provide  not  for 
his  own,  and  especially  for  those  of  his  own  house, 
he  hath  denied  the  faith,  and  is  worse  than  an 
infidel."  ^  If  worse  than  an  infidel  for  neglecting 
to  provide  the  necessaries  and  comforts  of  this  life, 
he  is  scarcely  better  than  a  devil  if  he  strive  not  to 
provide  the  heavenly  manna, — the  food  for  the  soul.^ 
§  248.  Mr.  C.  But  is  it  of  no  advantage  to 
parents,  in  educating  their  children,  to  be  able 
to  remind  them  from  time  to  time  that  they  have 
been  symbolically  sanctified  or  set  apart  by  the  seal 
of  Jehovah's  covenant,  and  to  plead  with  them  by 
the  solemn  vows  which  they  have  made  on  their 
behalf  ?  Assuredly  it  is  good  that  they  should  be 
taught  from  their  childhood  that  they  are  under  a 
covenant  engagement  to  be  the  Lord's,  and  have  the 
promises  of  God ;  that  they  have  obtained  by  bap- 

1  1  Tim.  V.  8. 

2  The  Rev.  E.  M'Millan,  a  Presbyterian,  and  an  ingenious  advocate 
of  infant-baptisno,  says,  "  Let  it  be  set  down,  that  neither  baptism  nor 
circumcision  creates  or  imposes  any  obligation,  but  merely  declares  and 
confesses  obligations  already  existing."  —  True  Baptist^  vol.  i.  p.  325. 


132  THE   TECNOBAPTIST. 

tism  a  share  in  all  the  great  and  divine  blessings 
and  promises  which  are  given  to  Christians  ;  and 
that  they  are  solemnly  obligated  by  baptism,  through 
God's  assistance  and  guidance,  to  fulfil  all  the  con- 
ditions on  which  Christians  receive  these  great  pro- 
mises ;  that  they  are  of  the  household  of  faith,  the 
children  of  the  kingdom,  fellow-citizens  of  the  com- 
monwealth of  Israel,  and  are  therefore  bound  to 
honor  and  obey  their  Father  in  heaven,  and  be  true 
and  faithful  subjects  to  Christ,  their  King. 

§  249.  Mr.  B.  I  hold  it  to  be  indisputable,  that 
truth  is  the  best  aliment  for  the  mind.  If,  then, 
these  things  be  true  which  you  propose  to  teach 
children,  there  must  be  some  advantage  in  such 
instruction.  But  our  argument  has  proved  tlmt 
they  are  not  true  ;  that  none  but  the  regenerate 
are  "  of  the  household  of  faith,"  "  citizens  of  the 
commonwealth  of  Israel  ;  "  and  the  Lord  Jesus 
himself  has  told  us,  that,  except  one  be  born  again, 
he  cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom.  Then,  if  your 
children  be  not  born  again,  not  of  water  only,  but 
of  water  and  the  Spirit,  they  are  not  "  children  of 
the  kingdom."  If  you  teach  them,  that,  in  conse- 
quence of  their  baptism,  they  "  have  the  promises 
of  God,"  this  implies  that  none  but  the  baptized 
have  a  promise  ;  whereas  Peter  says,  the  promise  is 
"  to  all  that  are  afar  off,  even  as  many  as  the  Lord 
our  God  shall  call."  ^     Nor  does  our  obligation  "  to 

1  Acts  ii.  39. 


THE    TECNOBAPTIST.  133 

honor  and  obey  the  Father,  and  be  true  and  faithful 
subjects  to  Christ,"  depend  upon  any  "  covenant 
engagement  to  be  the  Lord's."  It  is  not  by  baptism 
that  we  are  obligated  to  fulfil  these  duties  ;  but  all 
of  God's  rational  creatures,  with  or  without  baptism 
or  covenant,  owe  him  honor,  obedience,  truth,  and 
fidelity,  because  he  is  our  Creator  and  constant 
Benefactor,  and  Christ  gave  his  life  for  our  redemp- 
tion. It  is  but  a  moment  since  Mr.  A.  very  truly 
asserted,  that  children  who  are  left  unbaptized  are 
not  the  less  bound  to  live  as  Christians  (§  234)  :  but 
your  instruction  would  imply  that  none  but  the 
baptized  owe  these  duties  to  God ;  which  is  a  full 
justification  of  wickedness  in  all  who  are  not  bap- 
tized. As  the  things  which  you  propose  to  teach 
are  untrue,  I  conclude  there  is  no  advantage  in 
teaching  them.  Or  if  this  be  an  exception  to  the 
otherwise  universal  rule,  and  this  teaching  be  calcu- 
lated to  lead  children  into  the  way  of  good  living, 
yet  we  cannot  teach  what  is  untrue,  unless  we  adopt 
that  most  antichristian  principle  so  strongly  repro- 
bated by  the  Apostle  Paul,  —  "  Let  us  do  evil,  that 
good  may  come."  ^ 

§  250.  I  think  the  want  of  truth  in  what  you 
suggest  as  suitable  to  be  taught  to  children  is  suffi- 
cient proof  that  there  can  be  no  advantage  in  teach- 
ing thus.  I  believe,  moreover,  that  the  argument 
may  be  introverted,  and  the  teaching  be  proved  false 

1  Rom.  iii.  8. 
12 


134  THE   TECNOBAPTIST. 

by  its  tendency  to  evil,  instead  of  that  advantage 
wliich  you  think  would  result  from  it.     It  is  vain  to 
appeal  to  experience ;  for  here  we  would  conflict. 
We  must  therefore  apply  reason  to  acknowledged 
truth,  and  thus  deduce  a  conclusion.     We  know 
that  "  the  heart  of  the  sons  of  men  is  full  of  evil ;  "  ^ 
it  is  "  deceitful  above  all  things,  and  desperately 
wicked;"^  and  that,  among  the  evil  things  which 
proceed  out  of  the  heart  and  defile  the  man,  one, 
and  not  the  least,  is  pride. ^     So  strong  is  this  evil 
principle  within  the  heart,  that  even  the  humble 
Christian  is  not  without  danger  of  yielding  to  it,  — 
nay,  of  becoming  proud  of  his  very  humility.    There 
is  a  strong  tendency  to  Pharisaic  exclusiveness  and 
self-exaltation.     When  we  reflect  how  much  more 
likely  this  principle  is  to  spring  up  in  the  heart  of 
one  too  young  to  be  under  the  restraint  of  a  well- 
regulated  judgment,  it  is  not  difficult  to  imagine 
how  these   evil  propensities  would  be  affected  by 
such  teachings.     The  child  being  told,  "  You  are 
a  member  of  the  church,  which  is  the  kingdom  of 
heaven  ;  you  must  therefore  conduct  yourself  as  a 
child  of  God ;  you  have  been  symbolically  sanctified, 
and  must  strive  to  become  spiritually  sanctified,"  — 
tlie  old  Adam  would  rise  up  within  the  child ;  he 
would  remember  only  that  he  is  in  the  kingdom  of 
heaven,  that  he  is  sanctified  (without  knowing  what 
it  means),  and  that  he  is  a  child  of  God.     Then, 

1  Eccl.  ix.  3.  2  Jer.  xvii.  9.  3  Mark  vii.  22. 


THE  TECNOBAPTIST.  135 

with  Phariseaii  pride,  he  would  thank  God  that  he 
is  not  as  others  are :  for,  while  he  is  in  the  kingdom 
of  God,  they  are  in  outer  darkness  ;  while  he  is 
sanctified,  they  are  unholy ;  while  he  is  a  child  of 
God,  they  are  "  children  of  wrath." 

§  251.  Mr.  C.  Parents  must  watch  for,  and  care- 
fully repress,  such  feelings. 

§  252.  Mr.  B.  Better  keep  the  evil  seed  from 
falling  on  the  heart,  than  attempt  to  eradicate  the 
tares  when  they  grow  up  from  the  seed.  You  think 
it  is  good  that  children  should  be  taught  "  that  they 
have  been  symbolically  sanctified  or  set  apart  by 
the  seal  of  Jehovah's  covenant ;  that  they  are  of  the 
household  of  faith,  the  children  of  the  kingdom, 
citizens  of  the  commonwealth  of  Israel,"  <fec.,  &c. 
(§  248.)  Would  there  be  any  material  difference 
between  teaching  these  things,  and  teaching  that 
'•'  every  one  who  is  baptized  is  born  of  God,  —  born 
of  the  Spirit ;  is  regenerate  by  the  Holy  Ghost "  ? 
Your  own  words  as  to  the  latter  teaching  shall  con- 
demn the  teaching  which  you  propose  ;  for  I  will 
only  substitute  the  one  teaching  for  the  other.  "  If 
children  be  told  that  all  who  are  baptized  are  '  sym- 
bolically sanctified  or  set  apart  by  the  seal  of  Jeho- 
vah's covenant ;  are  of  the  household  of  faith,  the 
children  of  the  kingdom,  fellow-citizens  of  the  com- 
monwealth of  Israel,'  —  will  not  the  mass  of  man- 
kind, in  spite  of  every  precaution  and  explanation 
that  can  be  employed,  be  likely  to  mistake  on  a 


136  THE   TECNOBAPTIST. 

fundamental  point ;  to  imagine  that  the  disease  of 
our  nature  is  trivial,  and  that  a  trivial  remedy  will 
answer  ;  to  lay  more  stress  than  they  ought  upon  an 
external  rite  ;  and  to  make  a  much  lower  estimate 
than  they  ought  of  the  nature  and  necessity  of  that 
holiness,  without  which  no  man  shall  see  the  Lord"  ? 
(§  160.) 

§  253.  A  much  better  way,  because  it  is  the 
appointed  way,  is  that  which  my  view  of  the  subject 
suggests.  Tell  the  child  the  truth,  —  that  he  is,  by 
nature,  a  child  of  wrath,  even  as  others  are  ;^  but 
God  has  mercifully  provided  that  he  may  become  a 
child  of  God  through  faith .^  Exhort  him  to  pray 
that  he  may  be  sanctified  through  the  truth ,3  justi- 
fied by  the  blood  of  Christ,  and  saved  from  wrath 
through  him.*  Tell  him,  to  borrow  an  expression 
from  Mr.  A.  (§  29),  that  the  true  kingdom  of  God 
on  earth  is  but  the  "  gate  "  of  the  kingdom  above  ; 
tell  him,  not  that  he  has  already  entered  in  at  that 
gate,  but  that  he  must  "  strive  to  enter  in  at  the 
strait  gate  ;  for  many  will  seek  to  enter  in,  and  shall 
not  be  able."  ^  These  are  the  words  of  Him  who  is 
himself  the  vmy.  Add  to  these  his  other  words,  — 
that  none  can  enter  in  at  that  gate,  except  he  be 
born  again.^  None  will  be  able  to  enter  who  "  seek 
to  enter  in "  by  baptism  alone  ;  yet  when  one  is 
begotten  through  the  gospel,  and  quickened  by  the 

1  Eph.  ii.  3.  3  John  xvii.  17.  6   Lnke  xiii.  24. 

a  John  V.  1.  ■*  Rom.  v.  9.  6  John  iii.  3,  5. 


THE  TECNOBAPTIST.  137 

Spirit,  he  must  obey  the  Lord,  and  be  "born  of 
water"  also,  thus  confessing  Christ  before  the  world. 
By  such  instructions,  you  give  the  child  great  incen- 
tives to  exertion  ;  a  strong  inducement  to  seek  that 
narrow  way  which  few  shall  find ;  to  strive  to  enter 
in  where  few  shall  be  able  ;  to  seek  regeneration 
and  sanctification,  that  he  may  be  prepared  in  heart 
to  obey  Christ  in  receiving  the  symbol,  and  in  all 
things  else  ;  in  a  word,  to  "  seek  first  the  kingdom 
of  God  and  his  righteousness,"^  instead  of  deluding 
himself  into  the  belief  that  he  has  already  found 
them. 

§  254.  Mr.  C.  I  am  inclined  to  think  that  we 
have  mixed  some  leaven  of  error  in  our  premises, 
which  has  leavened  the  whole  lump,  and  brought  us 
to  an  erroneous  conclusion. 

§  255.  Mr.  B.  That  may  be  :  but  the  premises 
were  fixed  by  yourselves  ;  and  you  should  have 
been  careful  to  exclude  errors  which  prove  so  fatal 
to  the  doctrine  which  you  were  about  to  advocate. 
But  as  truth,  not  triumph,  is  my  object,  I  am  will- 
ing that  you  should  revise  the  premises,  and  correct 
any  deviation  from  the  truth. 

§  256.  Mr.  C.  I  cannot  discover  that  there  was 
any  error  in  what  we  assumed  ;  but  we  ought  to 
have  distinctly  stated  in  our  premises,  that  God 
made  two  covenants  with  Abraham,  —  the  one  na- 
tional, and  the  other  spiritual.     No  greater  error 

1  Matt.  vii.  33. 
12* 


138  THE   TECNOBAPTIST. 

can  be  committed  tliaii  to  confound  the  two,  and 
thus  identify  the  commonwealth,  founded  on  the 
one,  with  the  church,  founded  on  the  other.  Under 
the  New  Testament,  the  external  theocracy  was 
abolished,  and  the  church  continued,  to  consist  of 
true  believers,  in  which  the  only  condition  of  mem- 
bership is  faith  in  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  The  rite 
of  circumcision  was  attached  to  both  the  covenants, 
and  answered  the  double  purpose  of  securing  the 
benefits  of  the  theocracy,  and  putting  in  a  claim  to 
those  higher  benefits  to  be  secured  by  that  seed  of 
Abraham  in  whom  all  the  nations  of  the  earth  were 
to  be  blessed. 

§  257.  Mr,  B.  This  addition  to  our  premises 
might  have  shortened  our  argument,  but  could  not 
have  changed  its  result.  If  the  distinction  which 
you  draw  existed  before  the  advent  of  Christ,  it  is 
obvious  that  we  erred  in  speaking  of  the  relations 
in  which  servants  and  infants  stood  toward  the  Old- 
Testament  church,  with  which  they  could  have  had 
no  connection  whatever.  If  the  church  was  con- 
tinued unchanged,  it  could  have  been  entered  by  no 
other  means  under  the  old  dispensation  than  under 
the  new.  Servants,  then,  unless  regenerate,  were 
circumcised,  not  with  reference  to  the  church,  with 
which  they  had  no  connection,  but  because  of  the 
relation  in  which  they  stood  toward  the  external 
theocracy.  This  view  would  have  cut  off  all  that 
was  said  about  the  circumcision  of  servants  (§§  108, 


THE   TECNOBAPTIST.  139 

109).  Again  :  the  children  of  proselytes,  by  the 
act  of  their  parents,  —  and  even  Israelitish  children, 
by  their  carnal  birth,  —  were  brought  into  connec- 
tion, not  with  the  church,  which  was  spiritual,  but 
with  the  external  theocracy,  which  was  national. 
Neither  the  children  of  Hebrews  or  proselytes  could 
enter  into  the  church  otherwise  than  by  being  born 
again  ;  for,  as  we  have  seen,  that  is  the  only  way 
for  them  to  enter  it  now  ;  and,  if  there  were  no 
change,  it  must  have  been  the  only  way  then. 

§  258.  31r.  C.  Yet,  under  the  old  dispensation, 
it  was  not  necessary  to  wait  until  the  children  were 
regenerated  and  born  anew,  before  they  were  cir- 
cumcised. 

§  259.  Mr.  B.  Yery  true.  Upon  being  brought 
into  connection  with  the  external  theocracy,  they 
were  legally  circumcised,  as  a  seal  of  the  national 
covenant ;  for  you  say  that  the  rite  was  attached  to 
both  covenants  ;  and  it  was  of  such  a  nature  that  it 
could  not  be  repeated.  I  think,  however,  that  your 
hypothesis  is  contravened  by  the  fact,  that  there 
was  not  a  separate  and  distinct  seal  for  the  spiritual 
covenant,  —  a  seal  in  the  administration  of  which 
the  subject  should  exercise  volition.  But,  taking 
your  hypothesis  for  true,  if  no  change  had  been 
effected  by  the  coming  of  Christ,  except  the  substitu- 
tion of  baptism  for  circumcision  as  the  seal  of  both 
covenants,  then  infants  would  properly  be  baptized 
on  entering  the  external  theocracy,  and  the  practice 


140  THE   TECNOBAPTIST. 

tinder  the  former  dispensation  might  justify  us  in 
deeming  it  unnecessary  to  repeat  the  ceremony  upon 
the  entrance  of  the  same  individual  into  the  church. 
But  you  say  the  theocracy  is  abolished  ;  so  that 
baptism  is  attached  only  to  the  spiritual  covenant, 
upon  which  the  church  is  founded.  Hence  there  is 
nothing  to  entitle  one  to  baptism  before  he  enters 
into  and  becomes  a  member  of  the  spiritual  church, 
which  has  been  continued,  "  to  consist  of  true  be- 
lievers," and  "  in  which  the  only  "  —  and  I  may 
add,  the  indispensable  —  "  condition  of  membership 
is  faith  in  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ"  (§  256). 

§  260.  I  cannot  entirely  indorse  your  theory  ; 
and  it  cannot  be  adopted  without  rejecting  some  of 
the  points  which  we  agreed  to  take  for  truths  (§§  21, 
23).  There  were,  indeed,  "two  covenants  with 
Abraham,  —  the  one  national,  and  the  other  spirit- 
ual." But  I  do  not  believe,  that,  under  the  old 
dispensation,  the  church  was  separate  from  and 
co-existing  with  the  national  theocracy  ;  but  that 
they  were  identical,  and  were  founded  upon  the  na- 
tional covenant.  Upon  the  abolition  of  the  national 
theocratic  features,  God  "  set  up"  his  spiritual  king- 
dom, founding  it  upon  the  spiritual  covenant.  It 
was  grafted  upon  the  old  stock ;  but  the  old  branches 
were  broken  off  to  make  room  for  it.  Nationality, 
carnality,  were  cast  out,  and  spirituality  took  their 
place.  But,  even  if  we  receive  your  hypothesis  as 
true,  we  have  seen  that  it  would  argue  nothing  in 


THE   TECNOBAPTIST.  141 

favor  of  infant-baptism  (§  259).     Is  there  any  thing 
else  in  which  you  would  amend  our  premises  ? 

§  261.  Mr.  C.  It  may  be  that  the  Rev.  E. 
M'Millan  is  right  (tliough  I  cannot  say  I  am 
satisfied  that  he  is  right)  in  saying  that  the  hypo- 
thesis which  takes  circumcision  for  an  initiatory 
rite  is  false  (§  24).  "  If  it  were  an  initiatory  ordi- 
nance," says  he,  "  no  female  was  ever  in  the  Jewish 
church  ;  which  is  contrary  to  many  recorded  facts, 
and  plainly  so  contrary  to  the  Scriptures  generally, 
that  no  one  can  believe  it.  It  is  an  error  to  suppose 
the  rite  is  withheld  from  females  because  of  imprac- 
ticability ;  for  it  has  been,  and  is  still,  administered 
to  them  by  some  nations,  who  do  not  understand 
the  design  of  the  ordinance,  —  the  Arabs,  for  ex- 
ample.^ Then,  if  the  prime  intention  of  circumci- 
sion was  to  be  an  initiatory  ordinance  into  the 
church,  why  was  it  performed  upon  the  male,  and 
not  upon  the  female  ?  and  how  could  our  Lord 
declare  that  no  man  could  enter  the  church,  without 
baptism  ?  This  hypothesis  gives  no  answer ;  but 
if  we  suppose  that  baptism  initiated  the  recipient, 
and  then  circumcision,  like  a  type,  illustrated  the 
generation  of  the  great  Messiah,  in  whom  the  bap- 
tized professed  to  believe  as  the  Son  of  God,  the 
hypothesis  and  the  facts  agree.  God  taught  most 
of  the  doctrines  of  religion  in  the  old  dispensation 

1  The  Abyssinians,  and  the  Mohammedans  of  Egypt,  are  said  to 
circumcise  both  sexes.     (See  Encyc.  Amer.,  art.  "  Circumcision.") 


142  THE   TECNOBAPTIST. 

by  symbols  ;  and  every  symbol  was  chosen  on  the 
principle  of  analogy,  —  that  is,  the  prominent  idea 
in  the  symbol  was  itself  significant  of  the  idea  in- 
tended to  be  conveyed  by  it.  If  this  principle  be 
applied  to  circumcision,  we  see  it,  by  a  very  easy 
analogy,  pointing  to  the  generation  of  the  Messiah, 
not  by  man,  but  by  the  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost 
overshadowing  the  female.  The  Messiah  had  a 
human  mother,  but  no  human  father :  hence  the 
male  was  circumcised  by  cutting  off  the  foreskin ; 
while  the  rite  was  not  applied  to  the  female,  because 
woman  was  not  cut  off  from  participation  in  giving 
humanity  to  the  Son  of  God.  These  reasons  for 
the  rite  are  perfectly  obvious,  and  commend  them- 
selves to  the  human  understanding ;  while  no  human 
ingenuity  can  ever  devise  any  other  reason  for  it, 
and  especially  for  its  peculiar  application.  This 
explanation  agrees  also  with  the  fact,  that  circum- 
cision commenced  when  the  promise  of  the  Messiah 
was  made,  and  terminated  at  the  jiilfilment  of  the 
promise  in  the  gift  of  the  Messiah.  If  it  had  not 
referred  to  him,  it  would  not  have  ceased  like  all  the 
rites  which  terminated  in  him  ;  but,  like  baptism, 
the  sabbath,  the  religious  assembly,  &c.,  it  would 
still  stand,  to  point  to  its  future  truth.  It  is  diffi- 
cult to  conceive  how  it  can  refer  to  the  Messiah 
otherwise  than  as  I  have  explained." 

§  262.     Mr.  B.    In  what  you  quote,  I  perceive 
nothing  inconsistent  with  the  belief  that  circumcision 


THE    TECNOBAPTIST.  143 

was  a  rite  of  initiation.  It  seems  reasonable  that 
a  change  of  dispensations  should  be  accompanied 
with  a  change  of  initiatory  rites  ;  and  the  declaration 
of  our  Lord  most  probably  refers  to  the  kingdom 
which  he  was  about  to  "  set  up ; "  that  is,  the  new 
dispensation  :  for  if  baptism  had  been  the  rite  of 
initiation  under  the  old  economy,  and  none  could 
enter  the  church  without  it,  this  would  have  been 
known  to  Nicodemus,  and  he  would  not  have  asked, 
"  How  can  these  things  be  ?  "  ^  It  seems  reasonable, 
also,  that,  under  both  dispensations,  the  initiatory 
rite  should  be  made  to  symbolize  those  great  facts, 
the  belief  of  which  most  prominently  distinguished 
the  church  from  the  uninitiated.  Under  the  old 
dispensation,  those  great  facts  were,  that  the  Messiah 
should  come,  and  be  born  of  a  virgin.  This  was 
believed  by  the  Jews,  but  not  by  the  surrounding 
nations  ;  and  circumcision  was  sufficiently  signifi- 
cant of  the  prominent  fact ;  but  its  significance 
would  have  been  destroyed  by  applying  it  to  females. 
As  "  woman  was  not  cut  off  from  participation  in 
giving  humanity  to  the  Son  of  God,"  a  rite  indi-. 
eating  such  cutting-off  could  not  properly  be  admi- 
nistered to  females.  Under  the  new  dispensation, 
the  great  facts,  the  belief  of  which  distinguished  the 
church  from  the  Pagans  and  unbelieving  Jews,  were 
that  the  same  Messiah  was  already  come ;  that  he 
"  died  for  our  sins,  according  to  the  Scriptures  ; 

1  John  iii.  9. 


144  THE   TECNOBAPTIST. 

and  that  he  was  buried  ;  and  that  he  rose  again  the 
third  day,  according  to  the  Scriptures."  ^  Baptism, 
as  administered  by  the  apostles,  was  sufficiently 
significant  of  these  great  facts  ;  and  the  facts  do 
not  preclude  the  baptism  of  females.  Mr.  M'Millan's 
theory  as  to  the  signification  of  circumcision  is  per- 
fectly new  to  me,  and  so  plausible,  that,  if  not 
correct,  I  am  not  now  able  to  disprove  it.  It  seems 
more  probable  than  any  other  theory  which  has  been 
brought  to  my  notice  ;  and  I  will  adopt  it,  unless 
farther  investigation  should  prove  it  to  be  erro- 
neous. 

§  263.  Mr.  a  Mr.  M'Millan  says  also,  "  Cir- 
cumcision was  administered  to  infants  because  they 
were,  by  obstinate  and  natural  necessity,  to  be  pro- 
genitors of  the  same  Prince  of  whom  their  parents 
were  progenitors  ;  and  it  was  the  duty  of  all  having 
the  precious  promise  to  acknowledge  its  truth  by 
circumcision,  which  was  the  only  scriptural  acknow- 
ledgment of  it.  But  baptism  has  always  been 
administered  to  infants,  both  under  the  old  and 
new  dispensations,  because  they  belong  by  obstinate 
and  natural  necessity,  during  their  minority,  to  the 
same  government  to  which  their  parents  belong ; 
and  really  are,  and  must  be,  the  subjects  of  the 
same  king  to  whom  their  parents  are  subject.  And 
it  is  the  duty  of  all  parents  openly  to  acknowledge 
this  truth  by  baptism,  which  is  the  only  scriptural 

1  1  Cor.  XV.  3,  4. 


THE    TECNOBAPTIST.  145 

acknowledgment  of  it."  Thus  he  maintains  that  the 
infant  of  Christian  parents  is  to  be  baptized,  "  not 
because  that  of  the  Jewish  parent  was  circumcised, 
but  because  baptism  has  been  administered  to  the 
infants  of  believers  from  time  immemorial,  and  that 
under  the  sanction  of  divine  authority  and  exam- 
ple."^ Mr.  M'Millan  gives,  also,  very  ingenious 
arguments  in  support  of  his  theory,  that  infants 
were  baptized  under  the  old  dispensation. 

§  264.  Mr.  B.  Though  I  have  conditionally 
adopted  Mr.  M'Millan's  opinion  as  to  the  significa- 
tion of  circumcision,  I  cannot  agree  with  him  as  to 
the  reasons  for  administering  that  rite,  and  the  rite 
of  baptism ;  that  is,  his  theory  of  "  obstinate  and 
natural  necessity."  Not  all  the  Israelites  were  pro- 
genitors of  Jesus,  even  though  their  parents  were. 
Among  the  twelve  sons  of  Jacob,  only  Judah  was 
a  progenitor  of  the  Messiah  ;  among  the  five  sons 
of  Judah,  only  Pharez  ;  and  so  of  others.  Nor 
does  this  theory  furnish  a  reason  for  circumcising 
proselytes  and  their  infants,  and  slaves,  who  were 
not  among  the  progenitors  of  Christ ;  nor  does  it 
afford  a  reason  for  baptizing  converts  whose  parents 
were  not  believers.     The  true  reason  for  them,  and 

1  In  §§  261  and  263,  the  language  of  the  Eev.  E.  M'Millan  has 
been  condensed,  and  his  sentences  slightly  re-arranged.  The  original 
may  be  found  in  the  "  Time  Baptist,"  vol.  i.  pp.  322-328.  His  theory, 
which  was  not  met  with  until  after  the  foregoing  argument  was  written, 
seemed,  at  the  first  blush,  to  confute  the  argument  by  destroying  one  of 
the  premises.  It  is  deemed  advisable,  therefore,  to  consider  its  bearing, 
on  the  supposition  that  it  is  true. 

13 


146  THE   TECNOBAPTIST. 

all  others,  I  conceive  to  be,  that  those  rites  were  the 
appointed  methods  of  acknowledging  the  truths  to 
which  they  respectively  pointed.  But  though  I 
should  adopt  Mr.  M'Millan's  opinion  (which  I  am 
far  from  doing),  that  baptism  has  been  continued 
from  the  old  dispensation  to  the  new,  and  should 
even  admit,  that,  under  the  old  dispensation,  infants 
were  proper  subjects  of  baptism,  yet  I  could  not 
thence  deduce  his  conclusion,  that  infants  must  now 
be  baptized.  His  theory  would  destroy  some  of  our 
premises  ;  but,  though  these  have  been  employed  in 
our  argument,  they  are  by  no  means  necessary  or 
important  ingredients.  It  was  supposed,  indeed, 
when  we  entered  upon  the  inquiry,  that  the  substi- 
tution of  baptism  for  circumcision  was  an  important 
link  in  the  argument  for  infant-baptism  ;  but,  even 
with  that  admission,  the  argument  resulted  unfavor- 
ably to  infant-baptism.  Hence  the  argument,  that 
infants  must  be  baptized  now,  because  they  were 
circumcised  under  the  old  dispensation,  must  be 
abandoned  ;  but,  as  we  assumed  in  our  argument 
that  circumcision  was  exactly  the  same  thing  in  the 
Israelitish  church  that  baptism  is  in  the  Christian 
church,  except  the  difference  of  visible  ceremony 
(§  56),  it  is  evident  that  the  result  cannot  be 
changed  by  supposing  that  baptism  itself  was  prac- 
tised in  the  former  church,  and  continued  to  the 
latter.  Though  the  transfer  of  the  kingdom  from 
the  carnal  to  the  spiritual  seed  of  Abraham,  and  the 


THE   TECNOBAPTIST.  147 

change  of  the  initiatory  rite,  were  concomitant,  nei- 
ther was  dependent  upon  the  other,  but  both  upon 
the  will  of  the  King.  I  agree  with  you,  that  the 
change  of  the  initiatory  rite  could  make  no  change 
in  the  subjects  (§  56).  If  the  change  of  the  rite 
could  not  have  such  effect,  how  much  less  could  the 
perpetuation  of  the  rite,  whether  it  were  circum- 
cision or  baptism  !  But  it  is  not  enough  to  deny  the 
change  of  the  rite.  We  must  go  farther,  and  deny 
that  there  has  been  a  change  in  the  constituents  of 
the  church  itself;  we  must  deny  your  assertion,  that, 
''  in  the  covenant  with  Abraham,  God  promised  him 
two  kinds  of  seed,  —  the  one  by  natural  descent, 
and  the  other  by  faith  "  (§  98)  ;  we  must  deny  that 
"  the  Christian  church  consists  of  the  spiritual  seed 
of  Abraham,"  —  that  is,  his  seed  by  faith,  instead  of 
his  seed  by  natural  descent  (§  36)  ;  we  must  deny 
that  "  those  who  are  born  of  the  flesh,  whoever  may 
be  their  progenitors,  are  not  the  spiritual  seed  of 
Abraham,  and  cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God, 
or  church,  without  another  birth,  which  is  a  spiritual 
birth  "  (§  41).  Let  us  now  trace  the  argument  with 
a  view  to  Mr.  M'Millan's  theory ;  and  this  will  serve 
also  as  a  recapitulation.  We  must  discard  all  the 
premises  which  relate  to  circumcision,  and  assume 
in  their  stead,  that,  — 

§  265.  Baptism  was  the  outward  sign  of  mem- 
bership in  the  Old -Testament  church,  or  Jewish 
church. 


148  THE   TECNOBAPTIST. 

§  266.  The  infant  children  of  Israelitish  parents 
were  proper  subjects  of  baptism  in  the  Old -Testa- 
ment church. 

§  267.  In  the  New-Testament  church,  or  Chris- 
tian church,  baptism  is  still  retained  as  the  outward 
sign  of  membership,  and  is  to  the  New-Testament 
church  and  to  the  proper  subjects  of  baptism  now 
what  it  was  to  the  Old -Testament  church  and  to  the 
proper  subjects  of  baptism  under  the  old  dispensa- 
tion. 

§  268.  Mr.  C.  To  me  it  seems  that  these  con- 
cessions are  fatal  to  your  position.  They  positively 
admit  the  propriety  of  infant-baptism ;  for  they  show, 
that,  in  this  respect,  there  is  no  difference  between 
the  two  churches. 

§  269.  Mr.  B.  None  as  to  the  rite  of  initiation ; 
and  none  as  to  the  subjects  of  baptism,  except  such 
as  results  from  that  important  difference,  just  men- 
tioned, as  to  the  constituents  of  the  two  churches. 
It  is  by  forgetting  this  important  difference  that  you 
are  a  second  time  led  into  a  fallacy  of  that  kind 
which  Mill  pronounces  to  be  perhaps  the  most  com- 
mon, and  certainly  the  most  dangerous,  of  the  falla- 
cies of  ratiocination,  and  which  consists  in  changing 
the  premises.  I  have  already  shown  that  you  were 
guilty  of  this  fallacy,  when,  having  assumed  in  your 
premises  that  it  is  one's  relation  to  the  church  of 
God  which  entitles  him  to  the  rite  of  initiation,  you 
afterward  overlook  this  fact,  and  refer  his  title  to 


THE   TECNOBAPTIST.  149 

the  rite  of  initiation  to  his  relation  to  individual 
members  of  the  church  ;  that  is,  to  his  parents 
(§  79).  The  instance  now  under  consideration  is, 
according  to  Mill,  one  of  the  obscurer  forms  of  this 
dangerous  fallacy,  which  "  is  committed,  when,  in 
the  premises,  a  proposition  is  asserted  with  a  quali- 
fication, and  the  qualification  lost  sight  of  in  the 
conclusion."  ^  Thus  you  assume  the  proposition, 
that  the  Christian  church  is  the  same  as  the  Jewish 
church ;  but  with  this  qualification,  that  the  Chris- 
tian church  is  rendered  more  spiritual,  consisting 
no  longer  of  the  seed  of  Abraham  born  of  the  flesh, 
but  of  his  spiritual  seed  (§  36 ;  and  see  §§  32-35). 
But,  when  you  come  to  employ  that  proposition, 
you  lose  sight  of  the  qualification  ;  setting  it  aside 
on  the  ground  that  the  difference  "  is  not  essen- 
tial "  (§  35).  To  assume  that  it  is  not  essential  is 
to  beg  the  question.  The  difference  is  so  essen- 
tial, that  it  is  the  very  pivot  upon  which  the  whole 
matter  turns.  It  is  the  very  thing  which  excludes 
carnal  infants  from  baptism,  whether  we  proceed 
upon  the  hypothesis,  that  baptism  takes  the  place  of 
circumcision,  or  that  it  has  been  continued  from  the 
old  dispensation.  Let  us  now  proceed  to  ascertain 
what  effect,  if  any,  this  important  change  in  the 
constitution  of  the  church  has  upon  the  subjects  of 
baptism  ;  in  doing  which,  we  will  pursue  the  same 
logical  process  which  you  before  marked  out  (§  72). 

1  Mill's  "  System  of  Logic,"  book  v.  cliap.  6,  §  4. 
13* 


150  THE   TECNOBAPTIST. 

Baptism  now  stands  to  the  New-Testament  churcli  in 
the  same  relation  in  which  Baptism  formerly  stood  to  the 
Old -Testament  church  (§  267)  ;  also,  — 

Baptism  stands  toward  (X)  those  who  are  now  proper 
subjects  of  baptism  in  the  same  relation  in  which  Baptism 
formerly  stood  toward  those  who  were  then  proper  Sub- 
jects of  baptism  (§  267).     Therefore, — 

(X)  Those  who  are  now  proper  subjects  of  baptism 
stand  toward  the  New-Testament  church  in  the  same 
relation  in  which  those  who  were  formerly  proper  Subjects 
of  baptism  stood  toward  the  Old -Testament  church. 

Or,  to  adopt  the  more  convenient  form  of  expres- 
sion before  suggested  by  Mr.  A., — 

§  270.  Those  persons  are  proper  subjects  of  bap- 
tism in  the  Christian  church  who  stand  toward  the 
Christian  church  in  the  same  relation  in  which 
those  persons  who  were  proper  subjects  of  baptism 
in  the  Israelitish  church  stood  toward  the  Israel- 
itish  church  (§  73).  We  have  now  to  inquire,  as 
formerly,  — 

§  271.  Firstly,  Who  were  proper  subjects  of 
baptism  in  the  Israelitish  church  ?  (§  75.)  To  which 
the  answer  is,  "  The  infant  children  of  Israelitish 
parents  were  proper  subjects  of  baptism  in  the 
Israelitish  church"  (§  266). 

§  272.  Secondly,  In  what  relation  did  they  stand 
toward  the  Israelitish  church  ?  (§  75.)  To  which 
the  answer  is,  "  In  the  relation  of  membership  by  the 
fact  of  birth"  (§  23). 

§  273.     Thirdly,  What  persons  stand  in  the  same 


THE   TECNOBAPTIST.  151 

relation  toward  the  Christian  church  ?  Whoever 
they  may  be,  they  are  the  proper  subjects  of  baptism 
in  the  Christian  church.  We  know  that  carnal 
descent  from  Abraham,  or  from  any  other  person, 
cannot  bring  one  into  the  church  ;  that  no  one 
can  enter  it  unless  he  be  born  again  (§§  36,  41). 
Then  the  answer  to  the  third  question  is,  "  Those 
persons,  and  none  other,  who  have  been  regenerated 
and  born  again,  stand  toward  the  Christian  church 
in  the  relation  of  membership  by  the  fact  of  birth  " 
(§  89). 

§  274.  The  argument  may  be  thrown  into  a 
sorites,  thus  :  Those  persons  are  proper  subjects  of 
baptism  in  the  Christian  church  who  stand  toward 
the  Christian  church  in  the  same  relation  in  which 
those  persons  who  were  proper  subjects  of  baptism 
in  the  Israelitish  church  stood  toward  the  Israelitish 
church  (§  270).  The  infant  children  of  Israelit- 
ish parents  were  proper  subjects  of  baptism  in  the 
Israelitish  church  (§§  266,  271)  ;  therefore, — 

§  275.  Those  persons  are  proper  subjects  of  bap- 
tism in  the  Christian  church  who  stand  toward  the 
Christian  church  in  the  same  relation  in  which 
the  infant  children  of  Israelitish  parents  stood  to- 
ward the  Israelitish  church  (§  82). 

They  stood  toward  that  church  in  the  relation  of 
membership  by  the  fact  of  birth  (§  272)  ;  there- 
fore,— 

§  276.     Those  persons  are  proper  subjects  of  bap- 


152  THE   TECNOBAPTIST. 

tism  in  the  Christian  church  who  stand  toward  the 
Christian  church  in  the  relation  of  membership  by 
the  fact  of  birth  (§  86). 

Those  persons,  and  none  other,  who  have  been 
regenerated  and  born  again  stand  in  that  relation 
to  the  Christian  church  (§  89)  ;  therefore,  — 

§  277.  Those  persons  who  have  been  regenerated 
and  born  again  are  proper  subjects  of  baptism  in  the 
Christian  church  (§  103). 

§  278.  This  is  the  only  legitimate  deduction 
wliich  we  can  make  from  the  fact  that  infants  were 
baptized  in  the  Jewish  church.  It  may  also  be  true, 
that  infants  are  proper  subjects ;  but  the  argument 
derived  from  the  fact,  that  they  were  proper  subjects 
of  baptism  under  the  old  dispensation,  has,  thus  far, 
entirely  failed  to  establish  the  proposition  which  it 
was  designed  to  establish  ;  that  is,  that  infants  are 
proper  subjects  of  baptism  under  the  new  dispensa- 
tion (§  105).  If  this  argument  fail  to  establish 
that  proposition,  it  is  difficult  to  conceive  of  any  by 
which  it  can  be  established. 

§  279.  But  let  us  go  farther,  and  inquire  whether 
any  one  who  is  not  regenerate  is  a  proper  subject  of 
baptism.  If  our  premises  be  true,  baptism  is  an 
ordinance  of  the  church,  not  existing  out  of  the 
church  (§  109). 

§  280.  Mr.  C.  That  is  very  true.  Baptism  is 
not  to  be  administered  to  any  that  are  out  of  the 
visible    church,   until    they  profess    their   faith   in 


THE   TECNOBAPTIST.  153 

Christ,  and  obedience  to  him.  On  such  profession 
of  faith  and  obedience,  they  should  be  baptized,  and 
received  into  the  visible  church. 

§  281.  Mr.  B.  And  none  but  the  regenerate 
have  such  faith  as  entitles  them  to  baptism.  "  The 
Saviour  expressly  prohibits  any  one  to  enter  his 
kingdom  —  expressly  declares  it  impossible  for  any 
one  to  enter  therein  —  by  any  other  right  or  by 
any  other  method  than  that  of  being  born  anew. 
As  this  new  spiritual  birth  is  the  only  means  of 
entering  into  the  church,  and  becoming  subject  to 
its  jurisdiction,  it  is  the  only  means  by  which  one 
can  become  entitled  to  receive  that  church  ordi- 
nance which  is  the  outward  sign  of  membership  in 
the  church  (§  267).  Our  argument  may  proceed 
thus :  — 

§  282.  Those  persons,  and  none  other,  are  proper 
subjects  of  Christian  baptism,  who  stand  toward  the 
Christian  church  in  the  relation  of  membership  by 
the  fact  of  birth  (§  114).  Those  persons,  and  none 
other,  who  have  been  regenerated  and  born  again, 
stand  toward  the  Christian  church  in  that  relation 
(§  89).     Therefore,— 

§  283.  Those  persons,  and  none  other,  who  have 
been  regenerated  and  born  again,  are  proper  subjects 
of  baptism  in  the  Christian  church  (§  116). 

§  284.  Here  we  are  brought  again  to  the  sul]iject 
of  baptismal  regeneration,  which  has  been  already 
sufficiently  considered.     But,  indeed,  that  doctrine 


154  THE   TECNOBAPTIST. 

cannot  affect  our  argument ;  since  the  recipient  of 
baptism  must  be  regenerated  —  already  regenerated 
and  born  again  —  in  order  to  be  a  proper  subject. 
The  new  birth  being  a  prerequisite  to  the  admission 
of  any  person  to  baptism,  being  necessary  previously 
to  such  admission,  it  would  be  preposterous  to  say 
that  one  is  a  proper  subject  of  baptism  who  is  not 
already  actually  regenerated  and  born  anew,  whe- 
ther on  the  assumption  that  regeneration  is  effected 
ex  opere  operato,  or  merely  that  it  is  coetaneous 
with  baptism.  If  infants  were  baptized  in  the  Old- 
Testament  church,  it  is  certain  they  were  not  bap- 
tized till  they  were  born  into  the  church.  So,  now, 
no  one  should  be  baptized  till  he  be  born  into  the 
Christian  church ;  which  can  only  be  done  by  the 
second  or  spiritual  birth  (§  273").  We  know  that 
this  birth  results  from  the  proper  use  of  the  means 
supplied  by  divine  grace  ;  that  is,  the  incorruptible 
seed,  the  word  of  God  (§  48).  Hence  one  must 
have  sufficient  understanding  to  receive  the  word 
of  God  into  the  mind  and  heart  before  he  can  be 
born  again  ;  and  hence,  finally,  infants  cannot 
be  born  again,  since  tliey  have  not  that  degree  of 
understanding.  Then  the  final  syllogism  (as  for- 
merly) stands  thus  :  — 

§  285.  Those  persons,  and  none  other,  who  have 
been  regenerated  and  born  again,  are  proper  subjects 
of  baptism  in  the  Christian  church  (§  283).  Infants 
cannot  be  regenerated  and  born  again  (§§  180,  284)  ; 


THE   TECNOBAPTIST.  155 

therefore  infants  cannot  be  proper  subjects  of  bap- 
tism. In  other  words,  infant-baptism  is  not  a  divine 
institution  (§  181 ;  see  §  55). 

§  286.  We  have  now  traced  the  "  resemblance 
of  relations  "1  in  the  old  and  new  dispensations  of  the 
church  (§  70).  We  assumed,  that,  under  both, 
the  church  is  the  same,  yet  with  a  change,  by  which, 
under  the  new  dispensation,  it  became  more  spirit- 
ual (§  36).  In  keeping  with  this,  we  assumed 
originally  that  the  sign  and  seal  of  membership, 
the  initiatory  rite,  is  the  same  in  all  things,  except 
a  change  of  outward  form,  or  "  visible  ceremony  " 
(§§  51,  56).  Our  investigation  leads  to  the  discovery 
of  exact  proportion  and  consistency  with  respect  to 
the  members  of  the  church,  the  proper  subjects 
to  receive  the  rite  of  initiation  under  both  dispen- 
sations. We  have  found  the  like  sameness,  with 
the  like  change.  Being  equally  the  seed  of  Abra- 
ham, they  are  the  same,  yet  with  this  change, — 
that  they  are  no  longer  of  the  lineage  of  Abraham, 
but  are  his  seed  by  faith  ;  they  are  no  longer  Jews 
"  outwardly,"  but  "  inwardly  ;  "  2  they  are,  when 
first  they  enter  the  church,  infants,  but  no  longer 
carnal  infants,  being  born  into  the  church,  not  of 
the  flesh,  but  of  the  Spirit.  Thus  the  legitimate 
result  of  our  argument  is  the  belief  that  infants  are 
proper  subjects  of  baptism  in  the  New-Testament 
church  ;  not,  indeed,  carnal  infants,  but  only  spirit- 

1  See  Appendix.  2  Rom.  ii.  29. 


156  THE   TECNOBAPTIST. 

ual  infants,  —  new-born  babes  in  Christ,  begotten 
through  the  gospel,  born  of  the  Spirit,  nurtured 
with  the  sincere  milk  of  the  word ;  such  babes  as 
those  to  whom  it  pleased  the  Lord  of  heaven  and 
earth  to  reveal  those  things  which  he  concealed  from 
the  wise  and  prudent.^  Such  is  the  doctrine  which 
I  have  named  Tecnobaptism? 

§  287.  Mr.  A.  The  course  of  argument  which 
we  have  pursued  is  new  to  me,  and  cannot  be  an- 
swered without  investigation  and  reflection,  which 
will  require  time. 

§  288.  Mr.  C.  I  also  must  sue  for  an  armistice, 
and  acknowledge  that  our  inquiry  has  resulted  very 
differently  from  my  anticipation. 

§  289.  Mr.  B.  Of  course,  it  is  but  fair  that  all 
of  us,  acting  no  longer  as  advocates,  but  as  impar- 
tial jurors  (§  12),  should  take  all  the  time  necessary 
for  mature  deliberation.  I  would  here  recall  your 
very  just  remark,  borrowed  from  Stewart  and  Mill, 
that,  provided  our  premises  were  true,  we  might 
"■  obtain  a  series  of  conclusions  as  certain  as  those 
of  geometry,  and  as  irresistibly  compelling  assent "  ^ 


1  Matt.  xi.  25.   Luke  x.  21. 

2  From  TSKVuv  jSanriafia  {tecnon  haptisma),  "baptism  of  children." 

3  "  Hence  it  appears  it  might  be  possible,  by  devising  a  set  of  arbi- 
trary definitions,  to  form  a  science,  which,  although  conversant  about 
moral,  political,  or  physical  ideas,  should  yet  be  as  certain  as  geometry." 
"  From  these  principles,  a  series  of  consequences  may  be  deduced  by 
the  most  unexceptionable  reasoning;  and  the  results  obtained  will  be 
perfectly  analogous  to  mathematical  propositions."  —  StewarVs  Philo- 
sophy of  the  Mind,'''  part  ii.  chap.  2,  T]  4.      "  The  opinion  of  Dugald 


THE   TECNOBAPTIST.  157 

(§  14).  If,  then,  the  series  of  conclusions  which 
we  have  obtained  do  not  possess  that  degree  of  cer- 
tainty, it  must  be  owing  to  inaccuracy  in  our  process 
of  reasoning.  -  If  the  process  of  reasoning  be  cor- 
rect, yet  the  conclusions  be  not  true,  it  must  be 
owing  to  untruth  in  our  premises.  Hence  there  is 
but  one  of  three  things  for  us  to  do,  —  firstly,  to 
detect  some  flaw  in  the  statement  of  our  syllogisms  ; 
or,  if  that  cannot  be  done,  then,  secondly,  to  detect 
untruth  in  those  of  our  premises  for  which  Pedo- 
baptists  most  strenuously  contend,  and,  abandoning 
them  as  false,  look  for  some  other  basis  upon  which 
to  rest  the  cause  of  infant-baptism.  If  either  of 
these  things  can  be  done,  and  you  can  then  show 
by  any  valid  argument  that  carnal  infants  are  enti- 
tled to  baptism,  I  will  be  much  your  debtor  for 
removing  my  error,  since  I  desire  to  believe  only 
what  is  true.  But  if  you  cannot  show  that  our 
premises  are  false,  or  our  argument  illogically  con- 
ducted, nothing  remains  but,  thirdly,  to  give  our 
full  assent  to  the  conclusion,  that  carnal  infants  are 
not  proper  subjects  of  baptism  in  the  Christian 
church.     If  God  have  been  pleased  to  exclude  them 

Stewart,  respecting  the  foundations  of  geometry,  is,  I  conceive,  substan- 
tially correct,  —  that  it  is  built  upon  hypothesis ;  that  it  owes  to  this 
alone  the  peculiar  certainty  supposed  to  distinguish  it ;  and  that  in  any 
science  whatevei-,  by  reasoning  from  a  set  of  hypotheses,  we  may  obtain 
a  body  of  conclusions  as  certain  as  those  of  geometry;  that  is,  as  strictly 
in  accordance  with  the  hypotheses,  and  as  irresistibly  compelling  assent 
on  condition  that  those  hypotheses  are  true."  —  MiWs  System  of  Logic, 
book  11.  chap.  5,  §  1,  Tf  4. 

U 


158  THE   TECNOBAPTIST. 

from  this  rite,  it  becomes  us  to  say,  "  Father,  not  as 
I  will,  but  as  thou  wilt."  ^  I  know  too  well  your 
candor,  and  love  of  truth,  to  doubt,  that  you  will, 
in  the  spirit  of  our  primary  rule  (§  16),  keep  con- 
stantly in  view  "  the  investigation  of  truth  for  its 
own  sake  ;  and  to  that  end  "  will  follow  "  testimony, 
and  fair  deductions  therefrom,  whithersoever  they 
may  lead,"  though  it  should  be  to  the  doctrine  of 
Tecnobaptism. 

1  Matt.  xxvi.  39. 


APPENDIX. 


APPENDIX. 


We  have  now  traced  the  "  resemblance  of  relations  "  (^  286). 

§  290.  "There  is  no  word,"  says  Mr.  Mill,  "which  is  used 
more  loosely,  or  in  a  greater  variety  of  senses,  than  analogy." 
To  avoid  vagueness,  the  foregoing  argument  is  not  said  to  be  ana- 
logical ;  but  it  is  designated  by  one  of  the  definitions  of  analogy 
(§  70).  "  It  sometimes  stands,"  continues  Mr.  Mill,  "  for  argu- 
ments which  may  be  examples  of  the  most  rigid  induction.  Arch- 
bishop Whately,  for  instance,  following  Fergusson  and  other  writers, 
defines  analogy  conformably  to  its  primitive  acceptation,  that  which 
was  given  to  it  by  mathematicians,  —  resemblance  of  relations."  ^ 
He  proceeds  to  show,  that,  when  the  circumstance  in  which  the 
two  cases  resemble  is  the  material  circumstance,  —  that  on  which 
all  the  consequences,  necessary  to  be  taken  into  account  in  the 
particuleir  discussion,  depend,  —  the  argument  has  the  force  of  a 
rigid  induction.  In  the  foregoing  argument,  the  writer  concedes 
the  resemblances  for  which  Pedobaptists  contend,  and  also  the 
materiaHty  of  those  resemblances,  and  attempts  to  trace  the  argu- 
ment with  accuracy.  Its  conclusiveness  depends  upon  the  success 
of  that  effort.  The  observations  quoted  from  Mill  show  that  the 
mathematical  principles  which  have  been  adopted  are  the  same  as 
those  to  which  Ai'chbishop  Whately  and  others  give  the  name  of 
"  analogy ; "  and  that  they  are  appHcable,  not  only  to  the  relations 
of  magnitude  and  number,  about  which  mathematics  are  conver- 
1  "  System  of  Logic,"  book  ii.  chap.  20,  §  1. 
14* 


162  APPENDIX. 

sant,  but  generally  to  any  relations  where  comparison  can  be 
definitely  made,  and  proportion  discovered.  These  principles  will 
now  be  more  fully  developed  and  exemplified. 

§  291.  Three  mathematical  propositions  are  adopted,  and  ap- 
plied to  the  subject  in  dispute,  —  firstly,  that  proportionals,  taken 
alternately,  are  still  proportional ;  secondly,  that,  taken  inversely, 
they  are  still  proportional ;  and,  thu'dly,  that  if  there  be  four  pro- 
portionals, and  four  other  proportionals  having  the  same  antece- 
dents, the  four  consequents  will  be  proportional  (§§  70-72). 

§  292.  It  is  obvious,  that  where  the  consequents  in  any  four 
proportionals  are  equal,  with  respect  to  the  qualities  of  which  the 
relations  are  compared,  the  antecedents  also  must  be  equal  with 
respect  to  those  qualities.  This  may  be  illustrated  by  comparing 
numerical  relations.  If  each  consequent  be  equal  to  20,  and  one 
antecedent  be  equal  to  5,  so  also  must  the  other  be  ;  for  no  other 
number  can  bear  the  same  relation  to  20  which  5  does.  Also,  in 
exact  proportion  as  the  first  consequent  difiers  from  the  second, 
the  first  antecedent  must  differ  from  the  second.  For  example : 
Suppose  the  first  consequent  is  equal  to  12,  the  second  to  20,  and 
the  second  antecedent  to  5.  As  12  is  three-fifths  of  20,  the  first 
antecedent  must  be  three-fifths  of  5 ;  that  is,  it  must  be  3,  which 
is  the  only  number  equal  to  three-fifths  of  5,  and  the  only  number 
having  the  same  relation  to  12  as  5  to  20. 

§  293.  For  the  purposes  of  the  argument,  it  was  conceded  to 
the  Pedobaptist  colloquists,  that  baptism,  the  New-Testament 
church,  circumcision,  and  the  Old-Testament  church,  are  four  pro- 
portionals ;  also  that  the  subjects  of  baptism,  the  New-Testament 
church,  the  subjects  of  circumcision,  and  the  Old -Testament  church, 
are  four  proportionals.  Therefore,  if  the  consequents  —  namely, 
the  churches — be  identically  the  same,  or  exactly  equal,  so  must  the 
antecedents  be  :  that  is,  baptism  and  circumcision  must  be  identi- 
cally the  same,  or  exactly  equal,  in  the  one  case ;  the  subjects  of 
baptism  and  of  circumcision,  in  the  other  case.  And,  in  exact  pro- 
portion as  the  New-Testament  church  resembles  or  differs  from  the 


APPENDIX.  163 

Old  -Testament  church,  baptism  must  resemble  or  differ  from  cir- 
cumcision, and  the  subjects  of  baptism  must  resemble  or  differ  from 
the  subjects  of  circumcision.  The  churches  resemble  in  this,  — 
they  both  consist  of  "  the  seed  of  Abraham."  In  this  also  the  sub- 
jects of  baptism  resemble  the  subjects  of  circumcision,  except  such 
of  the  latter  as  have  been  cut  off  from  the  New-Testament  church, 
who  will  be  presently  noticed.  And  the  rites  resemble  in  sealing 
the  covenant;  in  marking  or  distinguishing  those  who  are  the 
elect,  or  church,  of  God.  The  churches  differ  in  this,  —  that 
the  New-Testament  church  is  enlarged,  and  rendered  more  spiritual. 
We  will  notice  now  the  change  as  to  spirituality.  The  New- 
Testament  church  is  not  a  nation,  as  the  Old  was :  hence  slaves, 
&c.,  are  excluded  as  such,  since  none  can  enter  it  save  by  birth. 
And  the  church  no  longer  consists  of  "  the  seed  of  Abraham  "  by 
carnal  descent,  but  by  faith ;  and  is  therefore  no  longer  entered 
by  carnal  birth,  but  by  spiritual  birth.  Accordingly,  those  persons 
■who  are  excluded,  as  such,  from  the  church,  —  as  slaves,  &c.,  — 
are  to  the  same  extent  excluded  from  baptism.  The  other  sub- 
jects of  circumcision  were  such  as  really  descended  from  Abrahanr 
according  to  the  flesh ;  while  the  subjects  of  baptism  are  such  as 
actually  have  faith,  —  that  is,  actually  believe  that  the  Son  of  God 
came  in  the  flesh,  suffered,  died,  and  rose  from  the  dead.  And, 
if  the  theory  of  circumcision  borrowed  from  the  Kev.  E.  M'Millan 
(§  261)  be  correct,  circumcision  pointed  to  the  then  future  incar- 
nation of  Messiah ;  while  baptism  points  to  his  past  death,  burial, 
and  resurrection.  Baptism  differs  from  circumcision  in  form,  and 
in  this,  —  that  it  cannot  properly  be  given  to  any,  merely  because 
they  are  the  slaves  or  the  carnal  offspring  of  certain  individuals. 

§  294.  It  may  be  advisable  to  illustrate  these  principles  by 
diagrams,  in  order  to  "  assist  the  mind  in  keeping  its  ideas  distinct, 
and  to  help  in  comparing  them  together  with  readiness  and  correct- 
ness."^ It  will  be  interesting  also  to  observe  how  mathematical 
figures  and  principles  may  be  made  subservient  to  moral  investiga- 
tion. 

1  Upham's  "  Elements  of  Mental  Philosophy,"  §  285. 


164 


APPENDIX. 


§  295.  For  the  first  illustration,  let  two  rectilineal  figures 
represent  the  two  dispensations  of  the  church.  The  lines  will  be 
designated  by  letters  placed  at  their  middles  ;  the  angles,  by  the 
letters  of  the  Hnes  including  them  ;  and  the  triangles,  by  the  let- 
ters of  their  three  sides.  Let  the  Old-Testament  church  be  repre- 
sented by  the  Hne  O  ;  the  rite  of  circumcision,  by  the  line  C ;  the 
proper  subjects  of  circumcision,  by  the  line  S ;  and  the  old  dispen- 
sation, by  the  triangle  SOC.  Let  the  New-Testament  church  be 
represented  by  the  line  N ;  the  rite  of  baptism,  by  the  Hne  B  ; 
the  proper  subjects  of  baptism,  by  the  line  X ;  and  the  new  dis' 
pensation,  by  the  triangle  XNB.  When  two  lines  meet,  their 
positional  relation  constitutes  an  angle;  or,  as  Prof.  Davies  re- 
marks, angles  "arise  from  the  relative  positions"  "of  lines  and 
planes  by  which  they  are  bounded."^  Therefore  the  reciprocal 
relations  of  the  church,  the  initiatory  rite,  and  the  proper  subjects 
to  be  initiated  under  each  dispensation,  will  be  represented  by  the 
angles  formed  by  their  respective  Hnes. 


§  296.  We  have  seen  that  the  relations  of  circumcision  and 
baptism  to  the  churches,  and  to  their  respective  subjects,  are  the 
same  (§§  51,  73).  Hence  NB  is  equal  to  OC;  and  XB,  to  SC. 
But,  when  two  angles  of  one  triangle  are  equal  to  two  angles  of 
another,  the  remaining  angle  of  the  one  is  equal  to  the  remaining 
angle  of  the  other.''  Therefore  NX  is  equal  to  OS ;  that  is,  the 
relation  of  X  [the  proper  subjects  of  baptism]  to  N  [the  New- 


1  "  Logic  of  Mathematics,"  §§  250,  273.       2  Euclid,  book  i.  prop.  32. 


APPENDIX.  165 

Testament  church]  is  the  same  as  the  relation  of  S  [the  subjects 
of  ch-cumcision]  to  O  [the  Old-Testament  church].  Thus  the  first 
conclusion  of  the  foregoing  argument  is  illustrated  by  the  positional 
relations  of  the  Hues  of  the  two  triangles  (§  73). 

§  297.  As  the  angles  of  the  triangles  are  equal,  if  one  side  of 
one  triangle  be  equal  to  one  side  of  the  other,  either  opposite  or 
adjacent  to  the  equal  angles,  the  other  sides  of  the  one  triangle 
are  equal  to  the  other  sides  of  the  other,  each  to  each ;  the  equal 
sides  being  opposite  to  the  equal  angles.^  Then,  if  N  [the  New- 
Testament  church]  be  equal  to  O  [the  Old-Testament  church],  B 
[baptism]  is  equal  to  C  [circumcision],  and  X  [the  proper  subjects 
of  baptism]  to  S  [the  proper  subjects  of  circumcision].  (See 
§  292.) 

§  298.  Let  these  principles  be  further  illustrated  by  the  rela- 
tions of  the  lines  with  respect  to  length  or  quantity.  The  angles 
of  the  one  triangle  being  equal  to  those  of  the  other,  each  to  each, 
the  sides  about  the  equal  angles'  are  proportionals ;  and  those 
which  are  opposite  the  equal  angles  are  homologous  sides ;  that 
is,  are  the  antecedents  and  consequents  of  the  ratios.^  Therefore 
B  [baptism]  is  to  N  [the  New-Testament  church]  as  C  [circum- 
cision] is  to  O  [the  Old -Testament  church];  and  B  [baptism]  is  to 
X  [the  proper  subjects  of  baptism]  as  C  [circumcision]  is  to  S  [the 
proper  subjects  of  circumcision] ;  and  X  [the  proper  subjects  of 
baptism]  is  to  N  [the  New-Testament  church]  as  S  [the  proper 
subjects  of  circumcision]  to  O  [the  Old -Testament  church].  Thus 
we  again  reach  our  first  conclusion  (§§  73,  296). 

§  299.  Or  if  the  line  C  be  taken  as  representing  carnal  birth, 
and  the  line  B  as  representing  spiritual  birth,  the  same  process 
will  show  that  X  [the  proper  subjects  of  baptism]  is  to  N  [the 
New-Testament  church]  as  S  [the  proper  subjects  of  circumcision] 
is  to  O  [the  Old -Testament  church];  and  B  [spiritual  birth]  is  to 
N  [the  New-Testament  church]  as  C  [carnal  birth]  is  to  O  [the 
Old  -Testament  church] ;  and  B  [spiritual  birth]  is  to  X  [the  pro- 
per subjects  of  baptism]  as  C  [carnal  birth]  is  to  S  [the  proper 
1  Euclid,  book  i.  prop.  26.  2  Euclid,  book  vi.  prop.  4. 


166  APPENDIX. 

subjects  of  circumcision].     Here  we  find  substantially  three  others 
of  our  series  of  conclusions  (§§  86,  89,  102). 

§  300.  Here  again  it  is  obvious,  that,  if  one  side  of  the  one 
triangle  be  equal  to  the  homologous  side  of  the  other,  the  other 
sides  of  the  one  are  equal  to  the  homologous  sides  of  the 
other  (§  297).  Since  B  :  N  :  :  C  :  O,  and  X  :  N  :  :  S  :  O,  if  N 
be  equal  to  O,  B  must  be  equal  to  C,  and  X  to  S.  For  example  : 
If  C  be  equal  to  one-half  of  O,  B  cannot  bear  the  same  relation  to 
N,  unless  it  be  equal  to  one-haK  of  N ;  for  that  is  the  ratio  or  rela- 
tion of  C  to  0.  And,  if  N  be  equal  to  O,  one-half  of  the  one  is 
equal  to  one-half  of  the  other.  So  also  of  X  and  S.  Then,  if  N 
[the  New-Testament  church]  be  equal  to  O  [the  Old -Testament 
church],  B  [baptism]  is  equal  to  C  [circumcision],  and  X  [the 
proper  subjects  of  baptism]  to  S  [the  proper  subjects  of  circum- 
cision] (§§  290,  291,  296).  In  like  manner,  it  may  be  shown, 
that,  in  exact  proportion  as  N  [the  New-Testament  chm-ch]  resem- 
bles or  differs  from  O  [the  Old -Testament  church],  B  [baptism] 
resembles  or  differs  from  C  [circumcision],  and  X  [the  proper  sub- 
jects of  baptism]  resembles  or  differs  from  S  [the  proper  subjects 
of  circumcision]  (§§  292,  293). 

§  301.  Some  of  the  resemblances  and  differences  between  the 
church,  under  the  old  and  new  dispensations,  have  been  pointed 
out.  Under  the  latter,  it  has  been  enlarged,  and  rendered  more 
spiritual  (§§  35,  36).  The  latter  point  of  difference  having  been 
noticed  (§  293),  let  us  now  confine  our  attention  to  the  difference 
which  consists  in  the  enlargement  of  the  church.  It  will  be  found 
that  a  con-esponding  enlargement  must  follow  in  baptism  and  its 
subjects. 

§  302.  Let  the  old  dispensation  be  represented,  as  before,  by 
the  triangle  SOC;  and  let  the  lines  and  angles  have  the  same 
signification.  The  enlargement  of  the  church  may  be  represented 
by  enlarging  the  line  O ;  that  is,  producing  it  to  a  sufficient  length 
The  whole  line  N,  which  includes  the  line  O,  wiU  represent  the 
New-Testament  church.  The  relation  of  baptism  to  that  church 
is  the  same  as  the  relation  of  circumcision  to  the  Old -Testament 


APPENDIX. 


167 


church  :  therefore,  baptism  may  be  said  to  be  parallel  to  circum- 
cision (§  55).  Accordingly,  by  drawing  B  parallel  to  C,  from  the 
end  of  the  line  N,  we  make  NB  equal  to  OC.^  Produce  S  till  it 
meet  B ;  and  let  the  whole  Hne,  thus  enlarged,  be  called  X,  and 
represent  the  subjects  of  baptism. 


§  303.  In  the  triangles  XNB  and  SOC,  the  angles  XB  and 
SC  are  equal,  because  the  parallels  B  and  C  are  intersected  by 
X ;  ^  also  because  NB  is  equal  to  OC,  and  OS  is  common  to  the 
two  triangles.^  Hence  the  triangles  are  similar ;  the  three  angles 
of  the  one  being  equal  to  the  three  angles  of  the  other,  each  to 
each.  Therefore'  N  [the  New-Testament  church]  is  to  O  [the 
Old  -Testament  church]  as  B  [baptism]  is  to  C  [circumcision] ; 
that  is,  baptism  is  enlarged  beyond  circumcision  in  the  same  pro- 
portion as  the  New-Testament  church  is  enlarged  beyond  the  Old- 
Testament  church.  Also,  as  O  [the  Old -Testament  church]  was 
enlarged  into  N  [the  New-Testament  church],  it  became  necessary 

1  Euclid,  book  i.  prop.  29.         2  Euclid,  book  i.  prop.  32,  cor.  4. 
3  Euclid,  book  vi.  prop.  4. 


168  APPENDIX. 

to  enlarge  also  S  [the  subjects  of  circumcision]  into  X  [the  sub- 
jects of  baptism],  in  order  to  complete  the  triangle  XNB  [the  new 
dispensation].  And  this  enlargement  is  exactly  proportional  to 
the  enlargement  of  the  church ;  for,  in  the  triangle  XNB,  C  is 
parallel  to  B  :  therefore  ^  X  [the  subjects  of  baptism]  is  to  S  [the 
subjects  of  circumcision]  as  N  [the  New-Testament  church]  is  to 
O  [the  Old -Testament  church]. 

§  304.  This  may  be  thought  proving  too  much;  for  slaves, 
and  others  who  were  admitted  to  circumcision,  are  excluded  from 
baptism.  This  is  a  curtailing,  instead  of  an  enlargement,  of  the 
subjects.  Very  true  :  but,  on  the  other  hand,  females  are  admitted 
to  baptism,  but  were  excluded  from  circumcision;  which  makes 
the  subjects,  thus  far,  at  least  equal.  But  equality  is  not  enlarge- 
ment. The  enlargement  is  exactly  the  same  which  has  taken 
place  in  the  chm-ch.  Once  the  church  embraced  only  Israelites, 
but  is  so  extended  as  to  embrace  all  believers,  whether  Jew  or 
Gentile ;  and  baptism  is  properly  administered  to  all  believers, 
whether  Jew  or  Gentile,  male  or  female,  bond  or  free. 

§  305.  Our  last  diagram,  however,  is  defective  in  two  particu- 
lars. Firstly,  the  triangle  which  represents  the  new  dispensation 
is  intersected  by  the  line  C,  which  represents  circumcision,  —  the 
best  emblem  of  "  the  middle  wall  of  partition,"  which  formerly 
separated  the  Israehtes  from  the  Gentiles ;  that  is,  the  ritual  law 
of  Moses.  As  "  the  middle  wall  of  partition  "  has  been  "  broken 
down ; "  ^  that  is,  as  the  ritual  law,  including  circumcision,  has 
been  discarded  from  the  new  dispensation ;  in  order  to  represent 
that  dispensation  more  correctly,  the  dividing  Hne  C  must  be 
removed;  leawg  the  triangle  XNB  undivided,  —  "one  body." 
Secondly,  N,  representing  the  New-Testament  church,  embraces 
the  whole  line  O,  which  represents  the  Old-Testament  chm'ch ; 
whereas  the  greater  part  of  the  latter  were  "  broken  off,"  and 
only  "a  remnant"  saved  in  the  church.  The  same  remark 
appHes  to  the  lines  X  and  S.  Therefore,  to  represent  the  new 
dispensation  more  correctly,  X  must  embrace  but  a  part  of  S, 
1  Euclid,  book  vi.  prop.  2.  2  Eph.  ii.  14. 


APPENDIX. 


169 


excluding  slaves,  &c.,  as  such ;  and  N  must  embrace  but  a  part 
of  O ;  that  is,  the  remnant,  which  the  line  R  may  represent.  The 
part  "  broken  off  because  of  unbelief,"  consisting  of  the  larger 
portion  of  the  Jewish  nation,  "  who  say  they  are  Jews,  and  are 
not,"  ^  together  with  circumcision,  "  the  middle  wall  of  partition," 
which  is  overthrown  and  cast  out  of  the  scheme,  must  be  removed 
from  our  triangle.     Accordingly,  they  are  represented  by  the 


New-Testament  Church. 


lines  O  and  C,  below  the 
triangle.  R,  the  remnant 
of  the  "  good  oHve-tree," 
must  be  enlarged  by  the 
branches  of  the  "wild  oUve." 
Let  this  enlargement  be 
represented  by  producing 
the  line  R  to  a  sufficient 
length ;  and,  from  the  end 
of  the  line  thus  produced, 


Unbelieving  Jews. 


1  Rev.  ii.  9;  iii. 
15 


170  APPENDIX. 

draw  the  line  B,  making  the  angle  NB  equal  to  the  angle  OC. 
The  lines  B  and  S  being  produced,  make  the  triangle  complete. 
B  represents  baptism  ;  X,  the  proper  subjects  of  baptism ;  N,  the 
New-Testament  church,  consisting  of  the  remnant  of  Jews,  and 
all  the  Gentiles  who  have  been  brought  into  the  church  with  them 
by  faith.  Thus  the  triangle  XNB  represents  the  gospel  dispensa- 
tion,—  the  church,  the  initiatory  rite,  and  the  subjects  of  it. 

§  306.  This  triangle  is  similar  to  the  triangle  SOC,  which,  in 
the  other  diagrams,  represents  the  old  dispensation ;  that  is,  all  the 
angles  or  relations  are  equal,  though  the  sides  are  not.  Conse- 
quently, the  sides  about  the  equal  angles  are  proportionals ;  and 
those  which  are  opposite  the  equal  angles  are  homologous  sides.^ 
In  other  words,  B  [baptism]  is  to  N  [the  New-Testament  church] 
as  C  [circumcision]  is  to  O  [the  Old  -Testament  church] ;  and  B 
[baptism]  is  to  X  [the  subjects  of  baptism]  as  C  [cu'cumcision]  to 
S  [the  subjects  of  circumcision] ;  and  X  [the  subjects  of  baptism] 
to  N  [the  New-Testament  church]  as  S  [the  subjects  of  circum- 
cision] to  O  [the  Old -Testament  chm'ch].  Thus,  once  again,  we 
have  reached  the  first  of  our  series  of  consequences  (§§  73,  296, 
298). 

§  307.  Our  last  diagram  will  illustrate  the  discarding  of  mem- 
bership by  carnal  bkth  from  the  Christian  scheme,  and  the  substi- 
tution of  membership  by  spmtual  bu'th.  Let  the  Hne  C  again 
represent  carnal  birth ;  and  B,  spiritual  bu-th.  Then  B  [spiritual 
birth]  is  to  N  [the  New-Testament  church]  as  C  [carnal  birth]  is 
to  O  [the  Old  -Testament  church]  ;  and  B  [spiritual  birth]  is  to  X 
[the  proper  subjects  of  baptism]  as  C  [carnal  bu'th]  is  to  S  [the 
proper  subjects  of  circumcision].  And  it  is  thus  exemplified,  that, 
in  exact  proportion  as  N  [the  New-Testament  church]  difiers  from 
O  [the  Old  -Testament  chm-ch],  B  [spiritual  birth]  differs  from  C 
[carnal  birth],  and  X  [the  proper  subjects  of  baptism]  from  S  [the 
proper  subjects  of  circumcision].  We  thus  see,  also,  that  the  dis- 
tinction between  Jew  and  Gentile,  arising  out  of  carnal  bu*th,  is 
1  Euclid,  book  vi.  prop.  4. 


APPENDIX.  171 

abolished  in  the  church  5  that  Christ  Jesus,  our  peace,  "  hath  made 
both  one,  and  hath  broken  down  the  middle  wall  of  partition ;  "  ^ 
that  those  "  who  say  they  are  Jews,  and  are  not,"  ^  together  with 
.  the  carnal  birth  in  which  they  gloried,  have  been  cast  out  of  the 
Christian  scheme  ;  under  which,  "  he  is  not  a  Jew  who  is  one  out- 
wardly ;  neither  is  that  cu'cumcision  which  is  outward  in  the  flesh  : 
but  he  is  a  Jew  who  is  one  inwardly ;  and  circumcision  is  of  the 
heart,  in  the  spirit,  not  in  the  letter ;  whose  praise  is  not  of  men, 
but  of  God."  ^  And  so  Jesus  told  the  Jews,  "  If  ye  were  Abra- 
ham's children,  ye  would  do  the  works  of  Abraham."  *  This  idea 
shines  forth  in  almost  every  page  of  the  New  Testament;  and 
this  it  was  which  gave  such  offence  to  the  unbelieving  Jews,  such 
joy  to  the  beHe\dng  Gentiles. 

§  308.  The  above  diagrams  are  designed,  not  for  proof,  but  for 
illustration ;  yet  it  is  believed  that  the  principles  which  control 
the  mathematical  truths  employed  in  these  illustrations  will  hold 
equally  in  all  cases  where  there  is  an  equal  resemblance  of  rela- 
tions. These  are  evidently  the  principles  which  Pedobaptists 
assume,  and  attempt  to  apply,  when  they  contend  that  the  church 
is  now  the  same  as  under  the  old  dispensation,  but  is  spirituahzed 
and  enlarged  (§  36),  or  "  expanded  to  a  nobler  form ;  "  ^  and  that 
baptism  is  the  same  thing  as  circumcision,  except  in  outward  form 
(§§  49-51).  If  these  premises  be  true,  the  Pedobaptists  are  right 
in  believing  that  the  principles  above  illustrated  are  applicable. 
But  they  commit  a  very  natm-al  error,  a  very  sHght  yet  impor- 
tant oversight,  in  attempting  to  apply  those  principles.  They 
overlook  the  truth,  that  it  is  one's  relation  to  the  church  of  God, 
not  to  individual  members  of  it,  which  entitles  one  to  receive  the 
rite  of  initiation.  They  are  also  guilty  of  a  fallacy  of  that  kind 
which  Mill  pronounces  to  be  perhaps  the  commonest,  and  cer- 

1  Eph.  ii.  14.  3  Rom.  ii.  28,  29. 

2  Rev.  ii.  9 ;  iii.  9.  4  John  viii.  39. 

5  Rev.  William  Ingraham  Kip,  "  Double  Witness  of  the  Church," 
p.  241. 


172  APPENDIX. 

tainly  the  most  dangerous,  of  the  fallacies  of  ratiocination,  and 
which  consists  in  changing  the  premises.  "  Instances  of  this  fal- 
lacy," says  he,  "will  be  found  in  almost  all  the  argumentative 
discourses  of  unprecise  thinkers  j  and  we  need  only  here  advert 
to  one  of  the  obscurer  forms  of  it.  .  .  .  This  is  committed,  when, 
in  the  premises,  a  proposition  is  asserted  with  a  quahfication,  and 
the  qualification  lost  sight  of  in  the  conclusion ;  or,  oftener,  when 
a  limitation  or  condition,  though  not  asserted,  is  necessary  to  the 
truth  of  the  proposition,  but  is  forgotten  when  that  proposition 
comes  to  be  employed  as  a  premise."  ^  Thus  the  Pedobaptists,  as 
already  remarked  (§  269),  assume  the  proposition,  that  the  Chris- 
tian church  is  the  same  as  the  Israelitish  church,  but  ydth  this 
qualification,  —  that  the  Christian  church  is  rendered  more  spirit- 
ual ;  consisting  no  longer  of  the  seed  of  Abraham  bom  of  the 
flesh,  but  of  his  spiritual  seed  (§§  32-36).  But,  when  they  come 
to  employ  that  proposition  as  a  premise,  they  lose  sight  of  the 
qualification;  setting  it  aside  on  the  ground  that  the  difference 
"is  not  essential"  (§  35).  "To  assume  that  it  is  not  essential  is 
to  beg  the  question.  The  difference  is  so  essential  that  it  is  the 
very  pivot  upon  which  the  whole  matter  turns.  It  is  the  very  thing 
which  excludes  carnal  infants  fi.'om  baptism,"  whether  baptism  is 
the  same  as  circumcision,  or  is  continued,  as  an  initiatory  rite, 
from  the  old  dispensation  (§  269).  In  the  foregoing  pages,  the 
effort  has  been  made  to  point  out  the  error  of  the  Pedobaptists, 
and  apply  correctly  the  principles  which  they  are  believed  to 
misapply. 

1  "  System  of  Logic,"  book  v.  chap.  6,  §  4. 


THE     END. 


^_    w 


